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 ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
I recently made a series of announcements on new schemes and initiatives designed to support serving personnel and their families throughout their military careers and beyond. Those include a further package to support armed forces personnel as they enter civilian life, a veterans ID card and a new fund dedicated to supporting the careers of the spouses and civil partners of those who serve.
Nigel Huddleston
I am sure we all agree that more could be done to help veterans when they return to civvy street. Steps have already been taken to improve co-ordination and co-operation between Government Departments on the provision of services for veterans, but what more can be done to improve co-ordination between Departments and local authorities?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The armed forces covenant, which I know his local authorities are members of, plays a vital role in ensuring that armed forces service personnel and those who have served are able to plug into health services, help with finding a home or any other support that it is so vital for local authorities to provide.
Victoria Prentis
Would the Secretary of State consider visiting the Heyford and Bicester veterans’ group, which meets once a month on Fridays in my constituency and provides a one-stop-shop for veterans and their families, where they can access all the services that they need?
Gavin Williamson
I was hoping that I would get such an invite in the near future, and one has just come along. I would be delighted to visit the group. I know that my hon. Friend does so much work there and is so supportive of them, and I look forward to seeing that at first hand.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Many veterans who have come to my constituency surgeries are being subjected to unnecessary face-to-face medical assessments in order to access social security benefits. Will the Secretary of State speak to his ministerial colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions, to stop that happening?
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
As we approach Remembrance Week, we pay tribute to all those veterans who have served Queen and country, as well as those personnel still serving.
Many of the support services that veterans rely on are delivered by local authorities, but councils across the country have faced deep cuts in recent years, with the Local Government Association estimating that in England alone they will face a funding gap of £7.8 billion by 2025. There is a similar picture in devolved nations, due to cuts to the block grant. Bearing in mind the vital role that local authorities play in supporting our veterans, will the Secretary of State join me in urging the Chancellor to rule out any further cuts to local authorities in his Budget next week?
Gavin Williamson
It is very important that all parts of government, whether local or national, play a role in delivering the very best services for our armed forces. The introduction of a veterans ID card will hopefully go a long way towards helping former service personnel to access the vital services provided by local authorities. That will be an important step forward.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
It is clear that both local and national Government, including the Ministry of Defence, owe those who are serving in the armed forces and those who have served a great deal of support, and we will continue to give them every bit of support that we can.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Thankfully the vast majority of personnel and veterans have very good mental health, but we know that there are challenges, particularly for early service leavers. What more can the MOD do to ensure that service members are directed to support services when they leave the forces?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. The actual mental health outcomes of service personnel are exceptionally good, but there are service personnel and former service personnel who do need a bit of extra support. The investment of £2 million in the veterans gateway is aimed at helping and supporting veterans and service leavers to access the type of support that they best need once they have left the armed forces.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
I thank my hon. Friend for his time and for the opportunity to see the excellent Manufacturing Technology Centre in his constituency just the other week, which demonstrated to me that emerging technologies present greater opportunities but also more complex threats than ever before.
Mark Pawsey
In addition to the great work at the MTC, does the Secretary of State agree with me that an excellent example of new technology supporting military capability is the electric drive systems using anti-vibration technology being installed on our marine vessels, which were both developed in Rugby and built in Rugby, and does he agree with me that they represent a great future for British manufacturing?
Gavin Williamson
Such technologies do represent a fantastic future for British manufacturing. If we look at the success that the Type 26 has had not just with the eight Type 26 frigates that are going to be built in Britain, but in securing orders in Australia and Canada, we can see that it demonstrates this kind of technology is not only designed in Britain, but should always be built in Britain.
Mr Speaker
I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) has now timed her bobbing correctly. I call Emma Hardy.
Emma Hardy
Workers at BAE Systems in Brough have always been at the forefront of developing technology and manufacturing, but after meeting some of the workers last week I am becoming increasingly concerned about their sole reliance on the Hawk orders. Can the Secretary of State do anything to encourage BAE Systems to diversify their manufacturing and to protect jobs at the Brough site?
Gavin Williamson
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and I have been working very closely with BAE Systems, but also with the Qataris in securing a key order for Hawk trainer jets. The hon. Lady raises an important point about the diversity of the site. It is certainly something that I can raise with those at BAE Systems at my next meeting with them, and I will be seeing them later this month.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am delighted that the Secretary of State has seen fit to protect our amphibious capability—HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion —and their related technologies, both new and conventional. These are such crucial tools for the Marines. On that note, will the Secretary of State fully understand and comprehend the importance of 40 Commando to my town of Taunton in his assessment of future capabilities?
Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend for all she did in raising her concerns about Albion and Bulwark. On 40 Commando in Taunton, I absolutely reassure her that there are no plans to move 40 Commando from Taunton: it will be there for a long time into the future.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State surely knows that, in a world of cyber-warfare, we of course need to invest in new technology and great innovation. However, he should not forget the Cinderellas, such as David Brown Gear Systems in Huddersfield, which is making gear boxes for tanks and for our great vessels. Will he come to Huddersfield and see what we do there?
Gavin Williamson
I know David Brown very well. He is of course the man who saved Aston Martin, so there is a very famous industrial heritage there. If I am not able to visit David Brown, I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, will be able to do so. We will look to make sure that one of us does. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the amount of technology and ingenuity we have in this country, and we should be very proud of it. That is not always just through the prime contractors, but through the many businesses that are so dependent on defence contracts.
Mr Speaker
I urge the Secretary of State to follow my very good example: I visited the Huddersfield constituency, and the hon. Gentleman who represents it is a very good host, as is the university to boot. It will widen the Secretary of State’s learning and cultural experience to go there.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
The UK’s defence capability has been immeasurably enhanced by the arrival of HMS Queen Elizabeth. We saw her in New York this weekend. Will the Secretary of State consider putting together a national carrier strategy, so that for the next 50 years she has a real, important global purpose?
Gavin Williamson
We do need to have a very clear national carrier strategy, because this is not just an important part of projecting power, but a key part of our national deterrence and of making sure that nations all around the globe understand that Britain has the capability to defend herself and to protect our international interests.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State commend Cammell Laird for winning for the second time its support order for the Royal Navy? Given the level of technology in the yard, is it not well placed for the new frigate orders? Although we are careful about taxpayers’ money and will not give him the hospitality that Huddersfield has offered, will he please come?
Gavin Williamson
I am getting a lot of invites and feel privileged to have so many. I congratulate Cammell Laird very much on its successful bid. It goes to show how vital money spent by the MOD is to many local economies. I shall endeavour to visit Cammell in the near future, but if I do not, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, will certainly do so.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Government believe it is vital to future-proof technologies, so I was shocked to learn that the Ministry of Defence has given the green light—yet again—to an American company, Boeing, for the replacement of the Sentry AWACS aircraft. That has been done without any competitive process, and it has been said that Boeing is planning to use old aircraft and semi-obsolete radar. Clearly there are differences of opinion about what Boeing has to offer, so will the Secretary of State agree to an independent evaluation of all the options to be considered?
Gavin Williamson
I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not intentionally mislead the House by implying that we are going to have old aircraft. We will have new aircraft in terms of the potential procurement of Wedgetail. We are confident that this is the best capability; it is world leading and it has the best ability to bring it to our Royal Air Force at the earliest possible stage.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
As there is a bidding war, may I say that, as the last six generations of my family came from Huddersfield, I am definitely up for coming back there?
Our assessments are made with the support of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. In making recommendations, the AFPRB takes account of the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitable service personnel, affordability, the inflation target and the need for armed forces’ pay to be broadly comparable with that of civilians.
Mike Amesbury
Does the Minister share my concern that all three services are running below strength, and the Government’s delay in lifting the public sector pay cap has exacerbated the problem?
Mark Lancaster
I am delighted to say, and I am sure the House will wish to know, that the 2% pay award has now been paid retrospectively, and the 0.9% bonus element will be paid in two lump sums, one next month and one in March.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The frontline of our country’s defence is increasingly in cyber-space, and the strength of that defence depends on the calibre of the people operating in it, such as my constituents at GCHQ. What steps are being taken to ensure that payscales are sufficient to attract and retain the brightest and the best?
Mark Lancaster
We take those factors into consideration, and I was delighted to open the new defence cyber-school back in March. We feel strongly that cyber-skills should become part of the core skills of all our armed forces.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
How many staff under the age of 25 are paid less than £8.75 an hour?
Mark Lancaster
It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I do not have that figure at my fingertips, but I will write to him.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
We remain committed to maintaining the overall size of the armed forces. We have a range of measures under way to improve recruitment and retention, and these are kept under constant review. Importantly, the services continue to meet all their current commitments, keeping the country and its interests safe.
Jeff Smith
The Armed Forces Pay Review Body reports that the outflow rates—personnel leaving the armed forces—are at “historically high levels” under this Government. Why does the Minister think that is?
Mark Lancaster
Retaining our service personnel is always a challenge, and that is precisely why we are focusing hard on the offer—the opportunity to train and to serve overseas. Only this month, some 5,500 personnel are serving on Saif Sareea 3 in Oman; equally, we have servicemen serving in Estonia and on Exercise Trident Juncture in Norway. We have perhaps not previously had those opportunities to train and to serve overseas, which are key to retention.
Alex Norris
The latest armed forces continuous attitude survey shows that 67% of personnel perceive the morale of their service as low. That clearly impacts on the retention of those who serve. Did it concern Ministers to read that, and when can we expect it to get better?
Mark Lancaster
I am confident that it will get better, partly for the reasons I have just outlined. We are focusing very hard on the offer to our service personnel to ensure that people stay. That is not only about pay—we have talked about the pay award—but the opportunities we give to our service personnel and the training they receive. There are very few professions in this country where one can join with limited qualifications and then leave with a degree-level apprenticeship. That is the sort of offer we make in the armed forces, and we are determined to continue.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Capita’s Army recruitment contract has been an unmitigated disaster, so as a member of the Select Committee I was very relieved to hear the Secretary of State say in evidence to us last week that if necessary he would be prepared to sack it. The sooner the better. May I ask the Minister of State, who we all respect, whether there is any good news at all on Army recruitment that he can share with the House today?
Mark Lancaster
As my right hon. Friend says, the Secretary of State was very clear, in the evidence he gave to the Select Committee, that there is always the option of ending the contract. I am pleased to say that there is good news. This is a long process, from application stage to delivering a soldier who is trained perhaps a year later, but we are now seeing applications at a five-year high, so the hopper is being filled at a rate not seen for the past five years. Equally, the conversion rate—managing to get applications converted and on to training—is also improving. At the start of the pipeline there are very positive signs indeed.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
It is a regrettable fact that the legal pursuit of our veterans is a significant deterrent to recruitment. What concrete steps is the Department taking to bring it to an end?
Mark Lancaster
I have not seen any evidence that supports what my hon. Friend has just said, so I would be grateful if he could supply it. None the less, the point he makes about our veterans being pursued legally is an important one. I can only refer him back to the Adjournment debate, I think on 25 June, when over 50 right hon. and hon. Members came to the House to discuss the matter. There is a consensus across the House that this is an issue we simply must address. He will be aware that the Government have consulted on the issue and we intend to publish the results of the consultation shortly.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
A scathing report by the Public Accounts Committee has found that the Ministry of Defence lacks the strategy to remedy, before 2023, the skills shortages now apparent in over 100 critical trades. Those shortages are putting an unprecedented strain on servicemen and servicewomen, with morale in freefall. When will the Government face up to the fact that personnel numbers have been plummeting on their watch, and what specific action will the Minister take to respond to the recommendations in the Committee’s report?
Mark Lancaster
We have already discussed some of the actions we are taking, but equally it is important to say that, while the hon. Lady likes to project a picture of gloom, the Army, for example, is actually over 93% manned and fulfils all its operational commitments. Our service personnel are getting opportunities today—the opportunity to train overseas, or, crucially, through training itself—that they may not have had five or six years ago. I have already talked about the fact that the Ministry of Defence is the largest provider of apprenticeships in the United Kingdom. These are some of the things that the hon. Lady might like to champion and praise for a change.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Mark Lancaster
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that in England and Wales, we will be increasing the number of schools with cadets, and I like to think that this is a good example. We do not recruit directly from the cadets—let us be absolutely clear. None the less, it is a fact that a large percentage of members of the armed forces were once cadets, and not only that—although the vast majority will not go on to joined the armed forces, the sorts of values that they are taught as cadets will set them up well for life.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)
The UK has world-leading counter-chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear capabilities. The MOD has committed around £950 million to maintain and improve these over the next 10 years.
Stephen Hammond
The Minister will know that following Salisbury, the armed forces played a vital role in identifying the nerve agent and helping to clear up the scene. Will he reassure the House that the MOD will do everything that it can to ensure that the investment in that capability will be maintained and increased?
Stuart Andrew
Absolutely, and I pay tribute to all those who worked so carefully and so hard in Salisbury and Amesbury on our behalf. As I said, the £950 million is there to improve this over the next 10 years. That includes £48 million to help to set up a new chemical weapons defence centre in Porton Down to make sure that we maintain our cutting-edge capability in chemical analysis and defence.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Earlier this month, along with other Members of the NATO Parliament, I visited the Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defence Centre of Excellence in the Czech Republic. One of the training courses that it runs is a skills training course for first responders—for police and ambulance personnel—who may often, as in Salisbury, be the first on the scene. What efforts is the Ministry of Defence making to make sure that we have that capability in this country?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Of course, this is not just about the armed forces; we have to recognise that all the emergency services were there very quickly. We need to ensure that they have all the training that they need. I will speak to colleagues in other Departments to ensure that that is happening.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
The Army is working closely with Capita to deliver improvements to recruitment. While there are positive indicators that measures are having an impact, I continue to monitor the Recruiting Partnering Project very closely and hold regular discussions with my officials regarding the contract.
Ronnie Cowan
Subject to a legal challenge, Capita was awarded the MOD fire and rescue contract despite an MOD financial assessment that gave the company the highest category of distress and vulnerability. With shoddy finances and an abysmal record of delivery, does the Minister agree with the MOD fire and rescue staff from my constituency that private corporations should have no place in managing MOD services?
Mark Lancaster
No, I do not think I do actually. Successive Governments have involved the private sector and I am sure that that is set to continue. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a challenge to that particular contract at the moment, but I remain convinced that the use of the private sector in delivering the Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation is probably the right thing to do.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The private sector has had enormous success in delivering huge efficiency savings to the Ministry of Defence over decades now, but on this particular contract, there seems to be an element of risk aversion in the management of it, not least on the medical side from the people making health assessments. Is there a case for getting more military back engaged in the delivery of this contract to make the right risk assessments about recruiting?
Mark Lancaster
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He will be aware of recent work being carried out by the Ministry of Defence through a medical symposium to try to tackle these very issues. Sometimes, some of the medical reasons for not joining are frankly quite archaic. To give a brief example, if someone has had childhood asthma, they cannot join even if they no longer have it, even though the chances are that it will not return until that person is probably in their 50s, when, of course, 99% of service personnel will have left.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Minister is celebrating current recruitment levels. Will he explain why the Scots Guards is currently under-recruited by 36%?
Mark Lancaster
I am not celebrating current recruitment levels. What I am saying is that we are all aware of the challenges facing the defence recruiting system some months ago, but given that this is a long pipeline, I am confident that the hopper at the start of that process, which can take up to a year, is now at a five-year high. I hope and I am confident that we will then see that slowly come through the system, which will result in an increase in the number of our service personnel.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The sorry saga of the Capita recruitment programme is made worse by the fact that the Ministry of Defence was told at the time that it would not work. I hope the programme will be sorted out in the short term, but until then will the Minister place a greater emphasis on retaining those superb personnel currently engaged in our armed forces?
Mark Lancaster
There are always two factors in the equation of armed forces numbers. One, clearly, is the number we recruit, and being a bottom-fed organisation, we have to keep recruiting, but equally, although we cannot retain everybody—the rank structure does not allow it—it is important that we continue to retain as many service personnel as possible for as long a career as possible. I have already highlighted some of the things we are doing to make that happen.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
May I send the best wishes of the Scottish National party to the UK team at the Invictus games? I cannot believe it has been left to the SNP to do that—but there we go!
Can the Minister tell me the total financial value of Capita’s contracts with his Department?
Mark Lancaster
Once again, it may come as a surprise, but off the top of my head, no I cannot, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
According to a written answer from the Minister, the figure is £1.15 billion. This addiction to privatisation at the MOD, which I get he is ideologically attached to, is causing mayhem, from recruitment to the fire and rescue service. If he pledges to sack Capita, he will have the support of people behind him, of the people across from him and of the SNP Benches. Why won’t he do it?
Mark Lancaster
The Secretary of State has made it clear that that always remains an option, but if the hon. Gentleman had listened to a word I had said over the past 10 minutes, rather than preparing his question, he might have realised that there was hope. I am confident, at the start of this process, that things are getting better.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
I pay tribute to the crews of HMS Albion and HMS Sutherland, which have played an important role in upholding freedom of navigation in the South China sea. Security in that region is vital to the UK and its global economic interests, and we shall not shy away from asserting our commitment to upholding the rules-based international system.
Kevin Foster
The continuing expansion of Chinese military activity in the South China sea, particularly around the Paracel islands, should worry anyone concerned about stability in the region, hence it was welcome to see HMS Albion there, flying the white flag—[Laughter.] —I mean the white ensign, but more will be necessary to reassure our allies. What are my right hon. Friend’s thoughts on more forward deployment of Royal Navy assets in this region—flying the correct flag?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend makes an important point about how our allies have seen our presence in the Indo-Pacific region. We have had the largest deployment of the surface fleet in a generation, and that will continue with HMS Argyll, which is due to be on exercise with our five power defence agreement allies, and also with HMS Montrose, which will be going to the region next year. It all goes to show that our passion and commitment to the region is growing, and we will be looking at how we can expand this in the future.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
It must be remarkably tempting as Secretary of State for Defence to look at the map and long for the days when a gunboat or two could be sent. Sadly, the days when the white ensign—the white ensign!—flew unchallenged are gone. Will the Secretary of State accept the fact that our friends and allies in Taiwan greatly value British maritime presence in those waters? Has he considered the possibility—I ask him for no more than an indication that he will think about this—of visiting a port in Taiwan, just to show our solidarity and friendship?
Gavin Williamson
There might be some challenges with that, but we will always consider all options and ideas. The actions that the Royal Navy has undertaken have brought in more allies in support of upholding the rules-based international order in the South China sea. That is what was so valuable about both Australia and France taking part in operations.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I understand from a defence company in my constituency that the Taiwanese are looking for defence contracts in this country and that the Americans are about to spend a lot of money on ships out in Taiwan. Can companies in this country go for those contracts, or is there some difficulty with that?
Gavin Williamson
If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will write to him to clarify the matter.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has commended the work and the crew of HMS Albion, one of our landing platform docks in the South China sea. Bizarrely, however, the national shipbuilding strategy has defined it as not being a complex warship, unlike frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers. Can the Secretary of State explain why HMS Albion and other amphibious ships are not deemed to be complex warships?
Gavin Williamson
The national shipbuilding strategy highlighted the fact that the definition was to apply to aircraft carriers, frigates and destroyers, and the strategy was welcomed on both sides of the House.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
RAF strikes in Iraq and Syria will continue until Daesh has been defeated in both Iraq and Syria. In Iraq we have about 500 personnel participating in the coalition’s programme of training.
Adam Holloway
Can the Secretary of State give some indication of what we are doing to maintain the momentum against a fractured Daesh?
Gavin Williamson
It is important to remember that although Daesh has been considerably weakened and the amount of territory under its control has been massively reduced, it remains a great threat. In the last month alone the RAF has made 27 strikes against it, which goes to show that the tempo of operations is not actually slowing down. We cannot take it for granted that Daesh has been defeated, and we must continue to put pressure on it.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a year since Raqqa was liberated from Daesh. There is still work to be done on securing all parts of the city, but attention needs to be given to how it will be rebuilt in the future. What plans are being drawn up, and what resources are being allocated to the reconstruction?
Gavin Williamson
The Department for International Development is leading this process, and the Ministry of Defence will continue to give it as much support as possible. We recognise the important role that must be played in respect of reconstruction following such a devastating conflict.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)
The 20% target for major equipment ensures that investment is directed towards NATO’s capability priorities, which directly enhances the security of the alliance. The United Kingdom continues to spend more than 2% of GDP on defence, and to spend more than 20% of that on major equipment. That investment helps to keep the UK safe, and ensures that NATO remains at the heart of our defence.
Peter Heaton-Jones
The NATO commitment opens up many potential opportunities for UK shipbuilders. Sadly, however, it comes at a time when Babcock International is considering the future of Appledore shipyard, which is very concerning. Will the Minister join me, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), in continuing to work with Babcock in committing ourselves to a long-term future for Appledore?
Stuart Andrew
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, for the work that they are doing on an issue that I know is important to them. One of the key aims of the national shipbuilding strategy is that UK shipbuilders should be competitive in overseas markets as well as domestically, so that we can secure their long-term future. I hope that they will engage in all the competitions that exist.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Mr Gorbachev has said that the United States’ decision to withdraw from the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty is a mistake. He has said:
"Under no circumstances should we tear up old disarmament agreements...Do they really not understand in Washington what this could lead to?”
I am not naive about Russia and the threat from Russia, but what is the future of existing international nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and what additional effect will that have on NATO’s budget?
Stuart Andrew
I apologise for missing the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but we want to ensure that we are a full member of NATO.
Stuart Andrew
We have made a commitment to spend 2% of GDP, and we have never spent less than 2%. We are doing everything we can to work with other partners and encourage them to do exactly the same.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
NATO has always been the cornerstone of Britain’s defence, so does my hon. Friend agree that the worst thing that could possibly happen to NATO would be the arrival of a Government whose leader has said recently of NATO:
“I’d rather we weren’t in it”.
He has said:
“NATO, the father of the Cold War in the 1940s, should have shut up shop in 1990”.
That was from none other than the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. NATO is an important alliance that we are proud to be a member of, and it is part of our defence strategy. It is extremely alarming to hear some of the views from the Leader of the Opposition.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty was mentioned earlier. Is not one of the consequences of the actions of President Trump that short and medium-range nuclear missiles will have to be relocated on UK soil?
Stuart Andrew
One of the things that we have to make clear is that we want Russia to adhere to the treaty in the first place—that is incredibly important. The treaty was incredibly important at the time it was signed. We need to ensure that they maintain the treaty and stick to the values it presents to us.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
The Ministry of Defence takes cyber-security extremely seriously and co-ordinates closely with the National Cyber Security Centre. I cannot comment on specific measures that the Department has taken, for national security reasons, but I can say that the Government have identified a number of cyber-actors widely known to have been conducting cyber-attacks around the world, and who are in fact from the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence service. The cyber-attacks are a further demonstration of Russia’s disregard for international institutions and norms.
Christine Jardine
As the Secretary of State says, it appears that Russia has developed sophisticated cyber-espionage and cyber-warfare capabilities that it is utilising to pursue its strategic goals. Can he assure us that the Government will provide the dedicated leadership needed to co-ordinate the multi-agency response to this threat?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady raises an important point about how we have to work right across Government, and also right across industry. That is why we have been committed to investing £1.9 billion in this area. It is about co-ordinating that, bringing people together and ensuring that vulnerabilities do not open up in the industrial sector, so we are working closely with the sector.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
The UK supports the United Nations, non-governmental organisations and the Red Cross to meet the needs of vulnerable people in Syria and refugees in the region. So far we have committed £2.71 billion since 2012.
Alison McGovern
The situation in Syria is complex and unpredictable, and many civilians are at risk. Given what the Secretary of State has just said about the financial commitment that this country has made to vulnerable civilians, I ask him to keep all options on the table and to keep talking to his colleagues in the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office to ensure that we do everything we can to get basic supplies to the civilians who need them in Syria.
Gavin Williamson
Every time there is such a request, we consider it very closely, to see how best we can offer help and support. We recognise the dreadful plight that so many people are suffering in Syria. The Ministry of Defence and our armed forces will always be there to support important humanitarian work.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
Earlier this month I met my counterparts in NATO to discuss efforts to strengthen the alliance, including further burden sharing and working with allies so that they can step up their efforts to tackle today’s threats, including by deterring malicious cyber-attacks.
Gavin Williamson
We should be incredibly proud of the leading role that we play; we were the first nation to commit our offensive cyber-capabilities to NATO, we have seen an uplift in troop numbers in NATO’s Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan, and we are second only to the United States in supporting NATO and the work it does.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Government’s counting within the 2% that we spend on defence things that would never have been counted under previous Governments undermines our voice when it comes to NATO. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm that current spending is simply inadequate if Britain wants to play a global role in the defence of the country?
Gavin Williamson
Britain has met and will always meet its NATO commitments, and we undertake to spend the money that is required by NATO guidelines.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As I am sure you will vividly remember, Mr Speaker, on this very date 35 years ago the largest ever demonstration by the campaign for one-sided nuclear disarmament marched in London. Just under 100,000 people marched—although, typically, four times that number was claimed—and the then leader of the Labour party, a lifelong unilateralist, told the rally that NATO should not deploy cruise or Pershing II missiles. If that policy had been followed, we would not have had an intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty. What assessment have my right hon. Friend and his Department made of whether that INF treaty, which has been successful for so long, has now been violated by Russia?
Gavin Williamson
It has been our clear and consistent view that Russia has been in breach of that treaty. We urge Russia to comply with the treaty.
Mr Speaker
I do vividly remember the demonstration in question, not least because, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is keenly aware, at almost exactly the same time I made an absolutely splendid speech at the University of Essex student union that was based overwhelmingly on the sagacious briefing provided by the right hon. Gentleman.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for listening to Plymouth’s campaigns to base the new Type 26 frigates in Devonport, in the constituency that I represent, and to save Albion and Bulwark from being cut. Can he give any further reassurance to the workers in Devonport that we will be a base for future NATO operations by confirming that we will be the home to the Royal Marines super-base as well?
Gavin Williamson
I should like to pay tribute to all the Members of Parliament in Devon and Cornwall who have campaigned so hard on the basing of the Type 26s and on keeping Albion and Bulwark. We are not going to make any early comments on the future basing arrangements, but I take note of the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
The majority of UK military support to Uganda involves training for the African Union mission to Somalia, which includes training officer cadets at Sandhurst and senior officers at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom.
Dr Williams
Ugandan soldiers recently tortured five Members of Parliament, including the pop star Bobi Wine, and dozens of others. Two of those MPs might never walk again. Why is the UK training those Ugandan forces at Sandhurst?
Mark Lancaster
We are not training those Ugandan forces. Let me be absolutely clear about this Government’s condemnation of the actions involving those Members of Parliament. The Ministry of Defence does not engage with the special forces command, which operates separately from the mainstream Ugandan people’s defence force. It was the special forces command that was involved in that incident.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
Our service personnel perform exceptional feats in difficult circumstances to protect this country. The Government’s view is that the institutions set out in the draft Stormont House agreement Bill, on which public consultation has just concluded, are the best way to ensure a fair, balanced and proportionate approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland.
Greg Hands
Will my right hon. Friend comment on the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) in the Select Committee last week? If I understood this correctly, the case related to a 77-year-old veteran who is suffering from terminal cancer and whose case has already been investigated. The soldier was cleared in 1975, and I understand that everyone else involved in the incident is now dead. Can my right hon. Friend tell us why this has happened?
Mark Lancaster
I believe that my right hon. Friend is referring to the case of Dennis Hutchings, which has been discussed on several occasions in this Chamber. Indeed, Mr Hutchings has very much become the figure who demonstrates why so many colleagues across the House are so uneasy about this process. I would like to reassure my right hon. Friend that the Ministry of Defence continues to support Mr Hutchings in every way we possibly can. This underlines why we are absolutely determined to put this right and sort out this issue.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
To echo the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), my constituent Mr Tom Lynch received a service medal that he asked me personally to return to the Prime Minister when he received a very distressing letter from the Historical Enquiries Team. Please can we have every assurance that these investigations, although necessary, will be carried out in the most sensitive manner, especially for those veterans who suffer from dementia and who are in their 80s?
Mark Lancaster
Frankly, in my 14 years in Parliament, I have found few issues on which the House is unified to such an extent. The consultation has recently closed. Speaking as a serviceman, I can only reassure the House of how keen we are to try to address this issue. I am sure there will be an announcement in the House in due course.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are about to move on to topical questions, but I advise the right hon. Members for Warley (John Spellar) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett), and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen), that, having missed out on substantives, they can take their chance in topicals. I am trying to encourage them.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
I take the opportunity to wish our team who are taking part in the Invictus games the very best. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), is currently in Sydney supporting them, so sadly is unable to be in the Chamber today.
As we approach the centenary of the end of the first world war and this year’s armistice commemorations, we remember all those who have fought and died in the service of this country. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will go to the thousands of events up and down the country to remember those who have lost their lives and pay tribute to our armed forces personnel, both current and former.
Diana Johnson
I concur with the Secretary of State’s comments.
I welcome the finalised deal for the nine Hawk aircraft being sold to Qatar. It is important for the employees at BAE Systems at Brough, for skilled local jobs and for flying the flag for British defence manufacturing, but there is more to do. What further support could the Government offer to win export orders for the Hawk in places such as Kuwait?
Gavin Williamson
As was touched on earlier, we have held discussions with the Qatari Government about the order for nine Hawks. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), was out in Kuwait furthering discussions about future orders for the Hawk. We will continue to work closely with BAE Systems to land more orders to sustain Brough.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
The whole House will be united in complete disgust at what has happened. These are war graves. We would not tolerate the desecration of war graves on land, and we should not tolerate the desecration of war graves at sea. We have instructed a survey of the site and are engaged with other Governments to ensure that, where ships are under their flags, action is taken to ensure that such behaviour does not go unpunished.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
At last month’s Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister said that austerity is over, but we know that the Tories’ record on defence is one of deep cuts and falling budgets. In cash terms, defence spending has been slashed by £4.9 billion since Labour left office. Can the Secretary of State tell us by how much his party has cut the defence budget in real terms?
Gavin Williamson
The defence budget is going up in real terms year on year. We have a commitment for it to go up every year by £1 billion up to 2021.
Nia Griffith
With due respect, I have to correct the record. Between 2010 and 2017, the real-terms value of the defence budget fell by nearly £10 billion, which puts immense strain on the ability of the Ministry of Defence to meet its commitments. We welcome the long overdue pay rise for service personnel, but whereas Labour set out a clear plan to fund a fair pay rise, will the Secretary of State confirm that his Government is providing no new money to cover the cost and therefore that he will have to make additional cuts elsewhere to give our forces the pay rise they deserve?
Gavin Williamson
We all welcome the increase in service personnel pay. When I meet service personnel, whether in the UK or abroad, they particularly point out that this is the largest pay increase they have experienced since 2010.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
The better defence estate strategy was published about two years ago, and the strategy remains in place as it stands. The strategy extends over some 20 years, and the Royal Navy continues to work to establish the amphibious centre of excellence in Plymouth.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)
We are currently in the pre-qualification process, which means we are making sure that we get the very best price for the ships we need. The FSS is not classed as a warship, and therefore it has to go out to international competition. We want to make sure that we have British shipyards competing for the contracts so that they become world competitors when other countries are looking to offer such contracts.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
We will be doing everything we can to increase cadet units right across the United Kingdom. Cadet units play a vital role in everything we do by sending out the message that our armed forces are important to every community in the United Kingdom.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Mark Lancaster
The hon. Lady is right that next year is a significant anniversary of the Normandy invasions, and it is important that we get it right. We are looking carefully at the right way for the Ministry of Defence to support the event, and an announcement will be made in due course.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s work on mental health support for veterans and members of the armed forces. Does he agree that the 24/7 mental health helpline plays a vital role in supporting those personnel and needs maximum publicity?
Gavin Williamson
The helpline is an important part of everything we do, but we can never rest in looking at what more we can do to support those who are serving and those who have served.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Mark Lancaster
We offer an enormous amount of support through the career transition partnership, and we offer mental health and, indeed, physical support to veterans. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me with the details of that individual case, I am more than happy to look into it.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I warmly welcome the combat air strategy, announced earlier this year. Will Ministers update the House on any potential discussions with future national partners?
Gavin Williamson
We continue to work closely with industry, especially BAE Systems. As we develop this strategy, four companies are at the heart of it—BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Leonardo and MBDA—but we are in discussions with other nations. I am afraid that I am not in a position to update the House on who they are.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Gavin Williamson
We will continue to keep the House informed and we will update the House with the findings in due course.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
This follows on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) about the situation in the South China sea, as last week I had the pleasure to meet representatives of our allies in the region. HMS Albion gave a demonstration of freedom of waters and of navigation, and the importance of that cannot be overstated. Is this going to become a regular exercise, because our allies in the region would be very happy to see that?
Gavin Williamson
We are committed to stepping up our presence right across the Indo-Pacific area. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot go into operational details at the moment, but we see our Royal Navy playing an important role in upholding our values.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) deserves some encouragement at this very early stage of his parliamentary career!
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Does the Minister not understand that to export defence equipment we have to have a strong home market, and that is why other European countries insist on building vessels such as the fleet solid support ships in their own yards, with their own workers. What blind dogma is stopping these Ministers and their Department doing the same and ensuring that we make them in Britain?
Stuart Andrew
As I said a moment ago, we are making sure that we go out to international competition, because that gives value for money to this country, and we can also then invest the savings we make in other capabilities. It means that we attract the best and affordable solutions. It also brings competition at the heart of our shipbuilding strategy, because we want our shipyards to go out there and compete for international orders.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Captain Mainwaring’s doughty band of men who formed the Walmington-on-Sea Home Guard are in danger of looking like special forces, on account of their ability to climb in and out of Lance Corporal Jones’s converted bread van, when compared with the modern Army, which has 18,000 clinically obese soldiers and servicemen, with 398 having type 2 diabetes, 160 being on prescribed diet pills and 16 having had liposuction. When is the Secretary of State going to do something about the state of the fitness of the British armed forces?
Mark Lancaster
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this matter, but, of course, as I look across this Chamber, I do wonder whether or not this was the right establishment to be criticising the British Army for obesity. Every year, all soldiers are required to carry out fitness tests. He will have realised, or seen, that from 1 April we are changing that annual fitness test to make sure it is more aligned with the combat roles our soldiers are required to carry out.
Mr Speaker
Gosh, there is something of an internal Scottish National party competition. It is an invidious choice between three celebrated individuals, one of whom is a member of the Select Committee. I call Martin Docherty-Hughes.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, let me say that I agree with the Secretary of State that we should be mindful of the armistice we commemorate this year. I will be joining family at Westminster abbey later this year to commemorate my great uncle James from County Mayo, who fell at Passchendaele.
Asbestos kills, and it is a silent killer. I represent a constituency with the highest rates of mesothelioma not only in Scotland or the United Kingdom, but in Europe. I was therefore dumbfounded at a recent Defence Committee meeting when senior members of the Ministry of Defence seemed to be silent and unable to answer questions on the use of asbestos in Sea King helicopters between 1969 and 2016. I have even heard that two of them have been brought back into service for training purposes. Will the Secretary of State please ensure that the report that has been brought about is fully published and that we ensure that those exposed to asbestos, both civilian and military, get due compensation, if affected?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to bring this issue up. I am starting to look at it in more detail. If he would allow me, I would like to write to him with further details, once I have had more information from the Department.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) offers the Chamber on a regular basis a passable imitation of Demosthenes, but Demosthenes was not subject to constraints of time, whereas under our Question Time procedures the hon. Gentleman and other Members are. I advise him to plough through the pages of the textbook on pithy questions by the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne).
EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost
(6 years 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
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): Will the Government make a statement on the additional costs of staying in the EU customs union after 2020 and provide an updated estimate of the total costs of the current draft of the withdrawal agreement?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Every arm of Government is working at pace to firm up and put in place all necessary arrangements to ensure that we are ready to leave and chart our own course as global Britain. The Government will continue to update Parliament on the progress of the negotiations, and the Prime Minister will update the House shortly in this regard in a post-Council statement.
In respect of the customs union, common rules will remain in place throughout the implementation period to give businesses and citizens critical certainty. This will mean that businesses can trade on the same terms as now until the end of 2020. As the Prime Minister has said, a further idea has emerged—and it is an idea at this stage—to create an option to extend the implementation period for a matter of months, and it would only be a matter of months. But as the Prime Minister has made clear, this is not expected to be used, because we are working to ensure that we have a future relationship in place by the end of December 2020.
As the House will appreciate, the length and cost of any extension to the implementation period are subject to negotiations. Throughout the implementation period, we will continue to build our new relationship, one which will see the UK leave the single market and the customs union to forge our own path and pursue an independent trade policy while protecting jobs and supporting growth.
During the progression of our exit negotiations, we reached a financial settlement with the EU that did two things—honoured our commitments made during our membership and ensured the fairest possible deal for UK taxpayers. In December, we estimated the size of the settlement to be between £35 billion to £39 billion, using reasonable assumptions and publicly available data. In April, the National Audit Office confirmed that this was reasonable.
The Government are committed to upholding our parliamentary democracy through honouring the result of the referendum and remaining fully transparent with Parliament on the deal that is reached, in advance of the meaningful vote.
John Redwood
The Treasury should do some calculations, because it would be an act of great rashness to agree to extend our period when we would be in another seven-year financial period for the EU, with all the consequences that might bring. It could cost £15 billion or more for a year and we would probably have to accept liabilities that might extend for the whole seven-year financing period. Why wouldn’t the EU front-load its expenses when we were still in the thing, and why wouldn’t it expect us to meet the forward commitments, as it says it wants us to do as and when we leave under the existing seven-year period?
We are desperately in need of more money for our schools, our hospitals, universal credit and for our defence—[Interruption.] We desperately need money so that we can honour our tax-cutting pledges which we all made in our 2017 manifesto—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, whose flow is difficult to stop—and I would not want it to be stopped.
The right hon. Gentleman must be heard. Mr Matheson, you are normally a most cerebral individual. Take a tablet.
John Redwood
Our economy is being deliberately slowed by a fiscal and monetary squeeze that we need to lift. We need tax cuts to raise people’s take-home pay so that they have more spending power. All this is possible if we do not give £39 billion to the EU, and all this will be even more possible if we do not pledge another £15 billion or £20 billion for some time never, if we are now going to give in yet again. When will the Government stand up to the EU, when will the Government say that they want a free trade agreement and they do not see the need to pay for it, and when will the Government rule out signing a withdrawal agreement that is a surrender document that we cannot afford?
John Glen
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for a number of Budget representations on that point. What I can confirm is that, when the sum of £35 billion to £39 billion was agreed, it was agreed on three principles: the UK would not make its payments sooner than it would otherwise have done; it would be based on the actual rather than the forecast; and it would mean that we would include all benefits as a member state. I recognise the wide range of concerns in the House, including those raised by my right hon. Friend, but we are at a delicate stage of the negotiations and the Prime Minister will be speaking to the House shortly.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has some brass neck. He spent eight years being a cheerleader for austerity and he comes to the House today and says that; it is unbelievable. Amid the Tory quarrelling, the Prime Minister’s negotiations appear to succumb to a new failure every day. She has stood staring at the menu for two years while the Cabinet devours itself. It now seems that it may take a bit longer for her to make up her mind, demanding that the EU give further time in relation to the transition period. What we cannot fathom is how the Government are unable to negotiate our exit within the agreed period, begging instead to make it longer.
Humiliatingly, I have to say, we hear that 95% of the agreement is done, as though that is supposed to reassure us. Perhaps I may remind the Government that 95% of the Titanic’s journey was completed successfully. Meanwhile, the Government have gone from discussing a backstop to discussing a backstop to a backstop, to requesting an extension to the transition. These do not signal a Government who are about to emerge victoriously.
Let me ask a couple of questions, if this 95% deal is done. First, on the EU’s trade policy, during the transition, the common external tariff and customs regime will continue to apply to the UK, but third countries will have no legal obligation to continue to treat the UK as if it were a member state. Therefore, what trilateral discussions have the Government had with both the EU and third country partners, such as Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland and all the other countries with which the EU has preferential trading agreements in place, to ensure that the UK will continue to benefit from these arrangements during the transition period? Secondly, what progress have the Government made towards acceding to agreements facilitating trade, such as the pan-Euro Mediterranean convention that facilitates diagonal cumulation of origin, during the transition period and in any deal thereafter?
These matters, along with the question of the wider trade in goods, are easily resolvable with the transition period that has already been agreed. If the Government had got their act together, there would not be talk of additional time. The only thing that is costing the Government is this useless Government.
John Glen
It is difficult to discern the precise questions there, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The Government are in a negotiation and there are a number of issues that are not yet resolved. With respect to the final state around our future freedom to trade, those are matters that will be reported on to this House before there is a meaningful vote. So he needs to be patient a little longer as we move through that last 5% and deal with those matters.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently remind the House that there is a further urgent question afterwards and then a statement by the Prime Minister, so I shall have to take a view as to the point at which we need to move on, but I would be assisted if colleagues were extremely brief.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
I am very concerned about the Government’s plans because, essentially, they mean our staying in a customs union in which we will have no say on the rules for a prolonged period, at the very moment that the global economy is facing some significant risks. Can my hon. Friend explain how this is in the UK’s national interest?
John Glen
I have set forward the Government’s position with respect to the negotiation and the idea about a modest extension in terms of months. It will be for the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to update the House sooner, but I acknowledge my right hon. Friend’s point with respect to the opportunities that exist beyond the EU in terms of finding a settlement that gives us the freedom to develop our trading relationships.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I was going to start my question by thanking the Chancellor for coming and answering questions on the cost of Brexit, but it is not the Chancellor who is here and I am afraid that the Economic Secretary is not doing a very good job of answering the questions on the cost. Can he tell us please: in the event of no agreement on staying in the customs union and the single market, what will be the loss in productivity to businesses in the UK and in Northern Ireland specifically and how many redundancies does he expect to see in Northern Ireland and in the UK? What is the loss cost to the UK economy of the EU citizens who have chosen not to come here or who have chosen to leave as a direct result of the Brexit vote? Lastly, if he truly believes that we would be better off as a result of the UK leaving the EU without being in the customs union or the single market, can he tell us what his models say about how much better off each of us will be?
John Glen
No, I cannot give the hon. Lady a cash figure for every member of the United Kingdom, but what I can say is that the Government and the Treasury are determined to make preparations for all eventualities. That is why we are preparing 70 statutory instruments to take through this House in the event of a no deal. The EU should be very clear that we are going to be ready for all eventualities while being committed to negotiating the best possible outcome, as directed by the British people two years ago.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
Of course, it is the policy of the party opposite for us to remain in the customs union forever. That is worth bearing in mind. Will my hon. Friend give a bit of detail on what work HMRC has done, in the case that we are in the customs union but outside the EU, on who determines things such as trade preferences and who runs trade defences on behalf of this country in those years?
John Glen
I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that these are matters with which the Government are engaged intensively in the negotiations at the moment. We are also working towards securing as much autonomy as possible for the British Government in the future. That is the mandate that we have been given by the British people.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Minister told the House a moment ago that the Government expect the negotiations on the future relationship to be concluded by December 2020. However, when the Government published their backstop proposal for Northern Ireland, they said that they expected those negotiations to be concluded at the latest by December 2021. Which of those two dates represents Government policy?
John Glen
Government policy is that we have a backstop arrangement in place to fulfil our obligations and we are in negotiation over the timings of that. The Prime Minister will be coming to the House later today and the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to clarify with her the answer to that question.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend inform me why he thinks that there is any incentive for the EU to give us a good deal if they think that by dragging their heels they can drag us into being obliged to pay extra money to them?
John Glen
There is no expectation that this Government will seek to pay more money to the EU. We are in negotiation, as has been set out. We have made considerable progress. We have a small number of items to resolve, but the intention is to get the best possible deal for the British taxpayer in the national interest.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister break it gently to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that, if we stay in the customs union and the single market—and, quite frankly, if we remain in the European Union—we will save our constituents that £81 billion that will be lost to them otherwise? That is not my calculation, but the Minister’s—the Treasury’s own calculations and forecasts from last December say that our constituents will be £81 billion worse off if we leave on the WTO terms of the right hon. Gentleman.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
What businesses in my constituency want is certainty and reassurance that the border will be as frictionless as possible. This is key to many sectors of prosperity in the north-west. Will the Minister confirm that the costs involved in temporary ongoing membership of a customs union will dramatically be outweighed by the benefits to business?
John Glen
The Government have to reconcile the decision of the British people to leave the EU with, as my hon. Friend says, the need to make sure that the cost to business is as little as possible. That is why it is absolutely imperative that, when we secure the final outcome of the negotiations, it is good for business, good for the economy and good for jobs.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Could the Minister set out the extra cost to UK GDP of leaving the customs union, and the extra cost to businesses in Wokingham, in particular, of the hard Brexit favoured by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)?
John Glen
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has spoken for himself. The reality is that, before the Government come back to the House for a meaningful vote, a whole range of data will be supplied to the House in order to make the discussion about that decision meaningful.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is doing an excellent job today, is, like me, an avid reader of the Conservative manifesto, which states that the withdrawal agreement and future relationship will be negotiated side by side. Ninety-five per cent. of the withdrawal agreement has been completed, which is great news. How much of the future relationship agreement has been done?
Mr Speaker
I understand that the Minister’s natural courtesy inclines him to look in the direction of the person who is asking him a question, but it is helpful if he faces the House. It is not a serious sin; I am just trying to aid and counsel him in the discharge of his duties.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Government’s own statistics show that leaving with no deal would put unemployment in the north-east up to 20%. What is their calculation of the effect on unemployment in the north-east of leaving the customs union?
John Glen
There are a range of assumptions around the implications of different scenarios. The Government seek to ensure that we minimise the downsides and maximise the upsides in the agreement that we come to. I recognise that significant industries in the north-east rely on certainty in that relationship, and that is why it is very important that we get it right.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
This modest extension that is only a plan is going to cost £15.6 billion. How will the Minister explain that in Southend, Salisbury and Stockport? Could we not use the money slightly better?
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Could I ask what the purpose of any such extension might be? Is it to replace the Irish backstop, or is it in addition to that?
John Glen
At the moment, this is an idea that has been raised. In terms of the detail of it and where it fits within negotiations, clearly the Prime Minister will be best placed to answer. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the enduring principles of our negotiations is to ensure that we treat the whole United Kingdom as a single united entity. That is an enduring principle that is guiding us through these negotiations.
Mr Speaker
Succinctness as exemplified, legendarily, by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees- Mogg).
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend say whether, if we stayed in the customs union, any revenues that came from customs would be considered to be own resources?
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Minister is doing his best to accentuate the positive, as the song goes, but he knows that the cost of Brexit is already being paid by every family and every business in this country: higher prices in the shops, a staffing crisis in the NHS and a hit to the public finances of £26 billion a year, before Brexit has even happened. Can I ask him to resist the jingoism and fantasy maths of the English nationalists in the Conservative party and remember that staying in a customs union is a red line for those of us in the Labour party? The value of not returning to a hard border—
Mr Speaker
Order. Forgive me for interrupting the hon. Lady, but we have got a lot to get through, and we must make progress rather more quickly.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that many people on the Government Benches and in the country think that £39 billion is not worth paying, let alone any more?
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Thousands of people across Merseyside, including my constituents, are employed in the automotive and aerospace sectors. Our membership of the customs union is vital for supporting jobs and investment in our regional economy. What assessment has the Treasury made of the effect of leaving the customs union on those sectors? Does the Minister agree that only staying in the customs union will ensure the future of those sectors?
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I think we can agree that any extension to the transition period will be costly—£15 billion, £16 billion or whatever it is—but the problem is that we will have no MEPs to represent us, no say and no influence on any legislation introduced during that period. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be no taxation without representation?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Who is offering to do a short sentence? Ah, well done—Catherine West.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
There seem to be a number of questions that the Minister is not able to answer. Is his boss available, or is he also in “the killing zone”?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The extension to the transition period is designed to replace the backstop to the backstop. Given that the Irish Government and Her Majesty’s Government have both said that they are not going to build the hard border, who is?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
In January, the Prime Minister promised ahead of the so-called meaningful vote that there would be a full economic impact assessment of the exit deal. Can the Minister guarantee that that will happen? How much time will MPs have to consider the deal before we have to vote on its credibility or the lack of it?
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
When looking at the customs union, would it not also be wise to look at the significant benefits of being in a trading bloc of 500 million people that has delivered wealth through some 40 FTAs with some 70 countries—agreements that the Government have already said they wish to adopt if we are able to, post Brexit?
John Glen
It is important that we honour the decision of the British people and that we come out with an arrangement that gives us the optimal long-term relationship with the EU and also a chance to exploit the opportunities in the world economy beyond the EU, which is growing faster.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Last October, I asked the Chancellor in the Treasury Committee whether the benefits of feasible future trade deals outweighed the costs of leaving the single market and the customs union. He could not give me a clear response. Is the Minister any closer to giving a clear response today?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Is the Minister finding withdrawal from the European Union as easy and cost-free as some of those on the Government Benches behind him suggested it would be?
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the head of HMRC estimates that the cost for British business of leaving the European Union customs union would be £20 billion a year?
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
A lot has been said this afternoon about the strategic cost of Brexit, but every day thousands of civil servants are dedicating their working lives to working to the Prime Minister’s direction, yet the Prime Minister is sacrificing the interests of the country to try to heal the divisions in her party among those on the Conservative Benches. When are the Government going to get a grip and stop wasting taxpayers’ money on delivering the impossible?
John Glen
The Chancellor has made money available across-Government to help us through this process. I would acknowledge the massive contribution made by our civil service to help across many Departments of Government. The Prime Minister is committed to securing the best deal for the nation.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Leaving the customs union will cost us billions, but it is also costing dear now. Does the Minister not agree with me that, with violent crime rising, the Home Office could have done with the extra money to pay for an extra 4,500 police officers, instead of £500 million for extra customs and border officials to prepare to leave the customs union?
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Will the Minister advise the patients of the Golden Jubilee Hospital in Clydebank in my constituency how patient they have got to be to have medicine regulation while Recardio is taking out its health clinical trials for new heart medicines?
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The truth is that this is typical crackpottery by the Brexit extremists on the Conservative Benches, who seem to be running the show over there at the moment. Will the Minister tell us what the effect will be on the aerospace sector and on Airbus next to my constituency of leaving and being outside the customs union, as opposed to remaining in and protecting those jobs?
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Experts have found that Wales will be hit disproportionately hard, with people and communities up and down Wales hit hardest if the UK leaves the customs union and the single market. Is the Minister prepared to make that sacrifice?
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Minister has been asked five times to identify the figures for unemployment if we leave the customs union, so let us make it easier for him: will unemployment go up or will it go down?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Minister looks as though he wishes he was somewhere else, and he has referred most of our questions to the Prime Minister, for which I am sure she is grateful. He must be able to answer this question: does he stand by the Treasury forecast that this country will be worse off outside the customs union, the single market and the EU?
John Glen
What I stand by is the desire of the Government to find the best possible solution for the United Kingdom—that maximises the advantages to the UK economy of the growth in economies outside the EU. There is a range of assumptions to a range of forecasts, and the Treasury always goes into considerable depth in setting those out clearly.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Manufacturers in my constituency need certainty, yet in recent weeks we have had a backstop, a backstop to the backstop and now an extended transition. Is not the truth that the Government’s chaotic approach to these negotiations is putting jobs at risk?
Mr Speaker
I will take the three remaining questioners if it is a short sentence from each—no more than that. I call Mrs Madeleine Moon.
Mr Sweeney
Does the Minister not accept that any firm whose operations span European supply chains will be worse off if we do not have a customs union?
Leaving the EU: Meaningful Vote
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union if he will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Government’s policy on how any motion under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to be put before the House of Commons for decision.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
May I start by welcoming the question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)?
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 confirmed in statute the Government’s long-standing commitment to provide Parliament with a vote on the terms of our final deal. When it comes to the motion that we consider at the point when the approval of the House is sought, the decision whether the motion is amendable or not will be a matter for you, Mr Speaker, not for the Government. However, the Government have made clear our expectation, subject to your prerogatives, that the motion will be amendable. The Government’s response, dated 10 October, to the report of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, “Parliamentary scrutiny and approval of the Withdrawal Agreement and negotiations on a future relationship”, stated:
“Of course, we accept that the Speaker may permit the tabling of amendments to the motion, as is usual convention.”
That understanding is also reflected in our response to the inquiry by the Select Committee on Procedure, which I provided on 10 October. Both responses were made publicly available on the Committees’ websites in the interests of transparency and to ensure that this House understands the Government’s position on the matter—although again, I defer to the House and to you, Mr Speaker, on procedural matters that fall within the prerogatives of the House.
It will be evident to hon. Members that any amendment to the motion would not be able to effect amendments to the withdrawal agreement or the future framework, which will have been agreed at the international level between the United Kingdom and the European Union; nor could any such amendment delay or prevent our departure from the EU as set out under article 50. It is worth reminding the House that the timing of our departure from the EU is set out in international law under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which this House voted to trigger.
The Government committed to giving Parliament a vote on the deal, and section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 sets out how that will happen. In passing that Act, Parliament confirmed its ultimate role in delivering on the will of the British people. Approving the final deal will be the responsibility of the House of Commons alone—a responsibility I know all hon. Members will take very seriously indeed.
Mr Grieve
While I have every sympathy with procedural problems that the Government may encounter and any honest attempt at finding a solution to them, I have to say that I find the Government’s position as stated in the memorandum they sent to the Procedure Committee entirely unsatisfactory. It departs from the plain assurances given repeatedly to the House that we would be enabled to express a desire for alternatives when voting to reject or accept any deal.
To remind my right hon. Friend, when his predecessor, our right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), appeared in front of the Exiting the European Union Committee on 25 April, to Question 1383 from the Chair:
“Can you give an assurance that the Government’s motion on the withdrawal agreement will be amendable? Yes or no?”,
our right hon. Friend replied:
“Mr Chairman, if you can tell me how to write an unamendable motion in the House of Commons, I will take a tutorial.”
Actually, one way of reading the memorandum is that that is exactly what the Government are planning to do. I might add that the promises were repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on 18 April in front of the Select Committee on the Constitution, and that throughout debates on the Floor of the House in June, when we were looking at unamendable motions, no one on the Treasury Bench demurred from the oft-repeated statements that the motion on the substance of the deal would be amendable.
Could my right hon. Friend please tell the House how he can reconcile those statements with the Government’s plain submission to the Procedure Committee recommending that a vote is first taken on the Government motion and before amendments are considered? What happens if Parliament approves the Government motion, but then amends it afterwards? Are the Government suggesting that they have what they need to ratify or not? Surely the issue will be no clearer if the Government adopt their method rather than the one they are criticising in the memorandum. Why, if there is a genuine problem over uncertainty, which I do understand, have the Government not suggested allowing different motions and choices to be put to the House for a view to be expressed prior to the Government motion being put? Why does that not feature in the Government’s submission at all?
My right hon. Friend knows that a lot in this House depends on trust. If I may say to him, the difficulty with the memorandum is that on one reading of it—I am glad to hear what he said at the Dispatch Box—it tends to undermine trust in the Government’s intention to honour the commitments they gave to the House.
Dominic Raab
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s question and his comments. Let me try to address them, if I may. He fears, if I understand correctly, that the Government are in favour of an unamendable motion, but in fact, as the memorandum he cites makes clear in paragraph 4:
“The approval…will be a substantive motion”—
that was, I think, the first point he made—
“and therefore, under existing House procedures, will be amendable.”
I hope that gives him some reassurance. It is also worth pointing out the implications that we set out in paragraph 6 of the memorandum, which was published on 10 October, which is that
“due to the legal status accorded to the motion under s. 13 of the 2018 Act,”
which I know he scrutinised very carefully,
“a clear decision on approval of the motion is needed in order for the Government to be able to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement.”
Again, I hope that that makes clear what the basic challenge is.
If I understand my right hon. and learned Friend correctly, he may wish to change the terms of the agreement that has been struck. I think that would come up against very real, practical and diplomatic obstacles. So late in the day, there would not be time to revisit the negotiation. Secondly, just from a practical, diplomatic point of view, is he really suggesting that at that point we would actually be offered different or more favourable terms? I think that that is unlikely in the extreme.
It is very important that this House is presented with a very clear decision of the most meaningful sort available, which is between the terms of the best deal that the Government can negotiate and the alternative. I hope and I am sure that that will focus minds when that point comes.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question.
May I start by saying this: I profoundly disagree with the Prime Minister on a number of issues, including Brexit, but some of the quotes and comments about the Prime Minister this weekend, attributed to Conservative MPs, Ministers or former Ministers, are nothing short of disgraceful. In a time of growing extremism, hostility and threats to those in public life, MPs should know better. The comments are, as ever, from unnamed sources. I hope the House can agree that this kind of language has no place in our politics and has to stop.
Labour has spent 18 months campaigning for a meaningful vote and for Parliament to be properly involved in the Brexit negotiations, yet at every stage the Government’s response has been to push Parliament away. We fear that this is the latest example. Labour is clear that Parliament must be able to express its view on any deal the Prime Minister brings back, yet the Secretary of State’s letter brings that into question. Of course Labour recognises that Parliament will have to approve or disapprove of any Brexit deal—it must be a decisive decision—but it is the role of Parliament, and not the Executive, to decide how that view is to be expressed.
Labour has always believed that Parliament should be able to table, debate and vote on amendments. That is consistent with paragraph 5 of the Government’s own legal advice, which makes it clear that absent a business motion being approved by the House,
“Multiple amendments may be tabled”,
the selection of amendments and the order they are taken in is
“in the hands of the Speaker”,
and that multiple amendments can be selected. I want to be clear that Labour will not support any business motion that does not meet these criteria, and I urge the Secretary of State to think again.
Dominic Raab
I thank the shadow Brexit Secretary for his comments, and I agree with him about the need for a serious, substantive debate and for the right tone for this debate. He is right that the meaningful vote needs to be a decisive decision. We set that out in the memorandum and that is what section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provides. As the memorandum that we have published makes clear, we expect amendments to be allowed on the motion, although again, that is an issue for you, Mr Speaker. The distinction that needs to be borne in mind is between the likely impact that any procedural amendments would have on the withdrawal agreement at the international level. The shadow Brexit Secretary is far too assiduous and astute a lawyer not to know that as a matter of basic law, they could not have an effect of altering the withdrawal agreement. Also, common sense—he will know—means that it will be highly unlikely, if not impossible, for us to refer back to the negotiating table.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I gently say to the Secretary of State that of course he was in the Ministry of Justice, and in his ministerial role he helped to negotiate the passage of the Bill that eventually became the Act that is the subject of this urgent question. And I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve): this is a matter of trust, and it is quite incredible for the Secretary of State to stand up and basically say that, as a former Minister who navigated the Bill through the House, they did not understand the consequences. This is a matter of trust not just in Parliament and along the Government Benches—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that many Members were very concerned about all of this and trusted the Government that we would have a meaningful vote—but among the people of this country, and if they think there is any breach in trust, they will not forgive this Government.
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend. She will know, because it is set out in our memorandum—I know she scrutinises these things very carefully—that we are amenable, subject to the prerogatives of the Speaker and the House, to this being an amendable motion. She will also understand the need—this is why it is a meaningful vote of the very highest order—for there to be a clear decision that we are given on the deal we are confident we can strike with our EU partners, so that we know whether we can proceed to implement it.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) not only for securing the urgent question but for the forensic way in which he has completely dismantled any credibility that the Government’s position may have had. I also endorse in their entirety the comments from the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), about the appalling comments that have been directed against the Prime Minister. I disagree with the Prime Minister on a lot of things, but nobody should be issued with the kind of threats that she has been expected to cope with over the last few days.
Too much of the discussion is now about who will become the next Prime Minister. The long-term career prospects for the Prime Minister, or any of us, are infinitesimally trivial compared with what will be at stake if and when this Parliament gets a chance to do its job in a meaningful vote—that means not only a meaningful motion, but that we must be able to put forward and vote on meaningful amendments before the final decision is taken.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that meaningful amendments will be allowed and that Parliament will have the opportunity to meaningfully amend the motion before we are asked to agree the final deal? Given that we are getting hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute updates on the Government’s negotiations with a select 50 or so Members of Parliament, will he tell us when the Government intend to start seeking consensus across the 600 Members of this House who are not members of the Democratic Unionist party or the European Research Group?
Dominic Raab
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as set out in the memorandum we sent to the Procedure Committee, which has been published, there will be a substantive and amendable motion. I do not think that any hon. Member, on either side of the House, would table a meaningless amendment, so I reject the premise of the question in that regard.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that no motion of this House can overturn the two Acts of Parliament on withdrawal or the article 50 letter, which all say we are leaving on 29 March next year, and that the Government are not minded to repeal those Acts?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend is right on both counts. None the less, on the meaningful vote, the motion will be substantive and amendable, and it will be for you, Mr Speaker, to decide on the scope and acceptability of those amendments.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Having read the Secretary of State’s memorandum to the Procedure Committee, and paragraph 13 in particular, may I point out to him that the Exiting the European Union Select Committee’s recommendation on amendments to the withdrawal agreement motion is that these be taken before the vote on the main question, not after? That is the issue. Will he take this opportunity to accept both that that is what the Select Committee recommended and that to order the vote in any other way would be unacceptable to many Members of this House?
Dominic Raab
I always respect the views of the Select Committee Chair, but the position is set out in the memorandum. We think it the proper course to ensure both a meaningful vote to which substantive amendments can be tabled and a clear decision on the outcome.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
When did the Secretary of State and the Government get the legal advice that told them they needed this so-called clean motion first? I do not remember, and I do not think my colleagues remember, it being the subject of any discussions with Ministers or Whips in relation to section 13. When did they get it and why did he feel it appropriate to break the news to the Procedure Committee and not Members of his own party with whom he had discussions?
Dominic Raab
We do not comment on legal advice, but obviously we took advice continually throughout the progress of the EU withdrawal Act, and the issue of section 13—the process and the need for it—and the importance of having a clear and decisive outcome to the meaningful vote, which is the surest way to make sure it is meaningful and substantive, were discussed at length during the passage of that Act.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State seems to be arguing that we cannot discuss any amendments in advance simply because those amendments might not be ones the Government agree with, might not give them the legal support they want or might not agree with them that there is no alternative to their motion. I am afraid they should be making those arguments when we discuss the amendments, before we discuss the main motion, in the normal way. Anything other than that is procedural ducking and diving to avoid the real substance of the debate and to avoid a meaningful vote.
Dominic Raab
I do not think there was a question there, but as the right hon. Lady will know, the selection of amendments and what the House can discuss is a matter for the Speaker. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. People can take whatever view they like, but, to be fair, the Secretary of State is always an estimably courteous individual in the Chamber, and we must hear the fella.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm once again that the choice in the meaningful vote is clear—either to accept the Government’s proposition or to leave without a withdrawal agreement?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend will know that section 13 deals at length with the procedural variations and what would need to happen in the event of Parliament not approving the deal. On the proxy debates that some hon. Members want to repeat—on the type of exit or deal we should negotiate—we have, of course, had 11 votes on single market or customs union-type variations to the Government’s negotiating mandate, and the Government in this House won each and every one.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
It is clear from what the Secretary of State has just told us that the Government are not offering the House a meaningful vote. How does it amount to Parliament taking back control if the Government are now attempting to gag our democracy by preventing MPs from being able to amend the motion first?
Dominic Raab
I gently refer the hon. Lady to the memorandum, which makes it clear that there will be a substantive motion. It is our view that, subject to the view of Mr Speaker, there would be amendments.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
When will the Government accept that the time for negotiations is over, and the time for appeasing factions is over? The European Union has consistently offered two options, Norway and Canada. Norway does not meet the expectations of the Brexit-voting public, and Canada does not have a majority in the House. The Government’s latest attempt to prevent Parliament from having a meaningful vote is yet more evidence that the foisting of a Brexit fudge on the Commons is imminent.
In London on Saturday, three quarters of a million people recognised those realities. When will the Government do so too? When will they give the British public a meaningful vote to obtain their informed consent to whatever Brexit is on offer, or to remain in the European Union?
Dominic Raab
It was very inventive of my hon. Friend to get that in through the back door. All I would gently say is that the basic democratic arithmetic suggests that several hundred thousand taking part in what was an impressive protest cannot trump the will of the 17 million who voted in a national referendum to leave the EU.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I think that the Minister has gone through the looking-glass and left his dictionary behind. He seems to think that “meaningful” actually means “meaningless”, and he seems to think, in his topsy-turvy world, that it is possible to amend motions after voting on them. Why does he not get a grip, get back to the real world, and give this Parliament the meaningful vote that his Government and his colleagues promised us when they accepted that amendment?
Dominic Raab
I do not think that the hon. Lady was right in either of her key points. The memorandum that we published sets out very clearly that there will be a substantive motion. It will be, in our view, subject to amendments. What we cannot have is a vote that renders meaningless the outcome of the referendum.
Mr Speaker
There has been much reference to the Procedure Committee, of which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is of course a distinguished ornament.
Sir Edward Leigh
The evidence given to the Procedure Committee last week was very clear. If there is no deal under section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, there will be a vote on a neutral motion. If there is a deal, there must be a meaningful vote under section 13(1). That motion is amendable, and amendments must be taken first, unless the Government produce their own business statement, and there has to be a vote on it. That is the procedure.
The important point to understand, however, is that deal or no deal, meaningful vote passed or not, can only affect the deal; it cannot affect the outcome of Brexit, because that is in statute. Only the Government can introduce legislation, so only the Government can stop Brexit on 29 March. Will the Secretary of State therefore give an unequivocal declaration to the House that in no circumstances—deal or no deal, deal rejected by the House or accepted—will Brexit not proceed on 29 March?
Dominic Raab
The Government are absolutely committed to giving effect to the referendum and leaving the EU in March next year.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Government only agreed to a meaningful vote on the final deal to avoid a parliamentary mutiny by their own side during the passage of the withdrawal Act. The Secretary of State knows that there is no majority in this place for a no-deal Brexit, but that, by implication, is what he is offering in his memorandum. When will he change his mind—or will there have to be another case in the Supreme Court?
Dominic Raab
It is not our intention to go for no deal. We have been working tirelessly, and we continue to work, through the October Council and into November, to get the very best deal for the country. We have made clear that we could deal with a no deal scenario, but it is a sub-optimal outcome. What we want to do is get the best deal that works for the EU and the United Kingdom—for all quarters of the country.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Come off it, Secretary of State. If a motion is amendable but not in a meaningful way, it is not a meaningful vote, and this House will not take it.
Dominic Raab
All I would gently say to my hon. Friend is that there is nothing meaningless about this vote. It would be one of the most ground-breaking decisions that the House has had to make for a generation: the decision on whether or not to accept a deal negotiated by the Government with the EU that works for all parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that at that point we would have some consensus in the House on a decision to accept the deal and move forward to the implementing legislation.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Let us cut to the chase. The Government have tried to gag Parliament at every turn in this process. Now they have a choice. The position that the Secretary of State is trying to take is, essentially, that it is no deal versus the deal that the Government have. That is not politically, constitutionally or morally sound. Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), will the Secretary of State tell us whether he took legal advice, when he took it, and who commissioned it? Was it him?
Dominic Raab
I have not commissioned any specific, bespoke legal advice on the point the hon. Gentleman raises, but we have been informed right the way through about the implications. Section 13 of the withdrawal Act was informed by legal advice not just from Government lawyers, but from all the lawyers across the House. It was scrutinised very carefully and at length in Committee, and it will give effect to what the House voted through in the Act.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
As I understand it, all votes in this House are meaningful—that is my first point. My second point is that the Act states that the House will vote on whether or not the withdrawal agreement should stand. I might be voting against that agreement, but it will be the meaningful vote. Amendments would then follow, if that motion was lost.
Dominic Raab
Subsections (4) to (6) of section 13 set out the process, which includes the Government coming back to Parliament in a no deal scenario—it is all set out very clearly in the legislation and amplified in the memorandum that we have provided to the Committee.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Why does the Secretary of State not just confess that he has been caught red-handed trying to stitch up Parliament, again? It is the same as the way the Government would not publish papers or share the impact assessments. They tried to grab Henry VIII powers at every possible twist and turn. They certainly will not let the public have a final say. Now he is trying to fix the arrangements so that we have amendments coming after a motion. He knows that the meaningful vote is in the legislation—it is the law. It is Parliament that decided that, and we fought very hard for that outcome. He should not undermine that or recant when it is MPs’ duty to have that meaningful vote.
Dominic Raab
MPs will have their say in the meaningful vote. They have scrutinised at length every stage of the Brexit process. Of course, it is not for the Government or any Minister to set out which amendments are allowed; that will be for Mr Speaker to decide. We have made it clear that we not only accept but welcome the fact that we will have a substantive motion, and of course that means it should be amendable.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Once the Brexit deal has been secured, how long will it be before we move on to the meaningful vote, keeping in mind that Select Committees, for instance, will want to look at the terms of the deal in order to advise other hon. Members?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We obviously want to bring forward the meaningful vote expeditiously, because that will give us proper time for scrutiny of all the legislation, but there must be time for the relevant Select Committees, and indeed every hon. Member of the House, to scrutinise it carefully. We are a little dependent on the time it takes us to negotiate the deal, but I will certainly bear in mind the important point he has made.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The reality is that the Government promised the House a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement, and now they are trying to backtrack and say that it is take it or leave it, in an attempt to bully MPs into accepting whatever they manage to cobble together. The Secretary of State’s predecessor said:
“Under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons it will be for the Speaker to determine whether a motion…is or is not amendable.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2018; Vol. 643, c. 13W.]
Can he confirm that it is also for the Speaker to determine the order of those motions, and the order of any amendments? If he does not think that is the case, will he publish the legal advice that says the contrary?
Dominic Raab
It is not for Ministers to determine the ambit, remit or scope of the prerogatives of the Speaker or this House, although we will of course respect them.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Brexit Secretary has said that he needs the negotiations to be finished by the end of November. If he reaches that target, will the House vote on deal or no deal before or after Christmas?
Dominic Raab
My remarks were just reflecting the practical challenges, on both sides, for example in implementing legislation in the UK, but obviously there is a degree of flexibility to ensure that we have a meaningful vote and that there is as much time for legislative scrutiny and that the right balance is struck.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will call a very small number of Members now, but colleagues will also have an opportunity to question the Prime Minister, who is always very committed to the House.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
What does the Secretary of State think the consequences would be if a majority in this House opposed the deal, opposed no deal and perhaps in those circumstances even supported a people’s vote if the Government tried to thwart the will of this House being expressed and implemented?
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
In December last year this House voted for a meaningful vote on the final deal, and we have subsequently, and again today, been reassured that any amendments to the motion on the subject of the deal will be a matter for the Speaker. Indeed, just last week the Prime Minister replied to me that in the case of no deal, the matter would come back to this House for us to agree on next steps. Why is the Secretary of State now undoing all those good assurances by suggesting that Parliament will have only a token role in all this? Does he not accept that this is a serious breach of trust? I ask again why he sought to communicate this change to the Procedure Committee before the MPs in this House.
Dominic Raab
There is nothing tokenistic about the meaningful vote set out under section 13, which will be on the deal that we do with the European Union—good for the UK and good for the EU—or the alternative, which is to leave the EU without that deal. The procedure that my hon. Friend refers to is clearly spelled out in section 13. The memorandum to which she referred was not somehow snuck out; it was given at the request of the Procedure Committee and made public so that every hon. Member could see it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
A number of parliamentarians are trying to establish whether article 50 can be unilaterally revoked. The Court of Justice of the European Union will hear that question on 27 November. If it says that article 50 can be revoked, does the Secretary of State accept that it would be open to this House to amend the Government’s motion, ordaining them to take whatever action is necessary to revoke article 50 and get us out of this unholy mess?
Dominic Raab
The Government have no intention of supporting a second referendum or the revocation of article 50.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
For the sake of absolute clarity, will the Secretary of State confirm either that the motion described in section 13 is neutral or that Standing Orders could be disapplied?
Dominic Raab
The technical answer to my hon. Friend’s question is set out at some length in the memorandum, but if there is any doubt about it, he can write to me and I would be happy to give him further clarification.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Institute for Government recommends that we have at least five days to discuss the deal that the Government reach with the EU. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that we will have at least five days for those debates?
Dominic Raab
We will have as much time as we possibly can, but the hon. Lady will know that this will in part be predicated on the time it takes to close the deal. We are confident that the remaining obstacles are narrowing and that we can get a good deal, but this will be at least partly determined by the length of time it takes to secure the end of the negotiations, and that depends on the EU as well.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
You do not need to be a procedural junkie or one of the many historians in this House to know that here we vote on the amendments first. Can the Secretary of State give us any example at all of the House voting on the amendments second?
Dominic Raab
The simple answer is that I am not sure, but I can tell the hon. Lady that we will have a substantive motion and that it will be subject to amendments, which will be for the Speaker to decide on.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s memorandum justifies the ordering involving the substantive motion coming first, which is highly unusual, on the basis of Standing Order No. 31, which relates to Opposition day motions. On what planet could this motion be described as an Opposition day motion?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman may well be an expert on the Standing Orders, but I would say to him that on the substance of the issue, this is clear. There will be a clear decision for this House to accept the deal we negotiate with the EU or to leave the EU with no deal. I know which side I will be on in that debate. We are confident that we can get a good deal, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will row behind it.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State understand that for many in this House the only genuinely meaningful vote is one that allows MPs to vote for the deal or to vote to stay in the European Union, and one that must be ratified in the people’s vote demanded by 700,000 people on Saturday?
Dominic Raab
We had that vote; it was in 2016 and the people decided to leave.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Is it not in the hands of the House of Commons to decide whether it wants a meaningful vote? We have Back-Bench time. I will be seeking time, with support across the House, to pass a motion that says that, if we do not approve of the Government’s final position, the fallback position will be Norway and Canada, and that we will not pay money until the agreement is through.
Dominic Raab
It is not for me to decide what procedures or motions the House puts forward, but I repeat the point I made earlier: we have had 11 votes on potential single market customs union variations to the negotiating strategy, and the Government won each and every one of them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues. My normal practice is to call everybody, but there are constraints of time and we must now move on. People will have the opportunity to question the Prime Minister.
October EU Council
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Before I turn to the European Council, I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning the killing of Jamal Khashoggi in the strongest possible terms. We must get to the truth of what happened. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement shortly.
On the European Council, in addition to Brexit, there were important discussions on security and migration. First, at last Monday’s Foreign Ministers meeting, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his French counterpart secured agreement on a new EU sanctions regime on the use of chemical weapons. At this Council, Dutch Prime Minister Rutte and I argued that we should also accelerate work on further measures, including sanctions, to respond to and deter cyber-attacks. The attempted hacking of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague earlier this year was a stark example of the very real threats we face. We must impose costs on all those who seek to do us harm, regardless of the means they use. This Council agreed to take that work forward.
Secondly, in marking Anti-Slavery Day, I welcomed the continued commitment of all EU leaders to work together to eliminate the barbaric crime of people trafficking. We reaffirmed our shared commitments to do more to tackle the challenges of migration upstream.
Following the Council, I met Premier Li of China, President Moon of South Korea and Prime Minister Lee of Singapore at the ASEM summit. Since 2010, our trade with Asia has grown by almost 50%, more than with any other continent in the world. I want to develop that even further. Indeed, the ability to develop our own new trade deals is one of the great opportunities of Brexit. At the ASEM summit, we discussed how the UK can build the most ambitious economic partnerships with all our Asian partners as we leave the European Union. We also agreed to deepen our co-operation across shared threats to our security.
Turning to Brexit, let me begin with the progress we have made on both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration on our future relationship. As I reported to the House last Monday, the shape of the deal across the vast majority of the withdrawal agreement is now clear. Since Salzburg, we have agreed the broad scope of provisions that set out the governance and dispute resolution arrangements for our withdrawal agreement, and we have developed a protocol relating to the UK sovereign base areas in Cyprus. Following discussions with Spain, and in close co-operation with the Government of Gibraltar, we have developed a protocol and a set of underlying memoranda relating to Gibraltar, heralding a new era in our relations. We also have broad agreement on the structure and scope of the future relationship, with important progress made on issues such as security, transport and services.
This progress in the last three weeks builds on the areas where we have already reached agreement: citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and the implementation period; and, in Northern Ireland, agreement on the preservation of the particular rights of UK and Irish citizens, and on the special arrangements between us such as the common travel area, which has existed since before either the UK or Ireland ever became members of the European Economic Community.
Taking all of that together, 95% of the withdrawal agreement and its protocols are now settled. There is one real sticking point left, but a considerable one, which is how we guarantee that, in the unlikely event that our future relationship is not in place by the end of the implementation period, there is no return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The commitment to avoiding a hard border is one that this House emphatically endorsed and enshrined in law in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As I set out last week, the original backstop proposal from the EU was one we could not accept, as it would mean creating a customs border down the Irish sea and breaking up the integrity of our United Kingdom. I do not believe that any UK Prime Minister could ever accept this, and I certainly will not.
As I said in my Mansion House speech, we chose to leave and we have a responsibility to help find a solution, so earlier this year we put forward a counterproposal for a temporary UK-EU joint customs territory for the backstop. In a substantial shift in its position since Salzburg, the EU is now actively working with us on this proposal, but a number of issues remain.
The EU argues that it cannot give a legally binding commitment to a UK-wide customs arrangement in the withdrawal agreement, so its original proposal must remain a possibility. Furthermore, people are understandably worried that we could get stuck in a backstop that is designed to be only temporary. There are also concerns that Northern Ireland could be cut off from accessing its most important market, Great Britain.
During last week’s council I had good discussions with Presidents Juncker, Tusk and Macron, Chancellor Merkel and Taoiseach Varadkar, and others, about how to break this impasse. I believe there are four steps we need to take.
First, we must make the commitment to a temporary UK-EU joint customs territory legally binding so that the Northern Ireland-only proposal is no longer needed. This would protect relations not only north-south but, vitally, east-west. This is critical. The relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is an integral strand of the Belfast Good Friday agreement, so to protect that agreement we need to preserve the totality of relationships it sets out. Nothing we agree with the EU under article 50 should risk a return to a hard border or threaten the delicate constitutional and political arrangements underpinned by the Belfast Good Friday agreement.
The second step is to create an option to extend the implementation period as an alternative to the backstop. I have not committed to extending the implementation period. I do not want to extend the implementation period, and I do not believe that extending it will be necessary. I see any extension or being in any form of backstop as undesirable. By far the best outcome for the UK, for Ireland and for the EU is that our future relationship is agreed and in place by 1 January 2021. I have every confidence that it will be, and the European Union has said it will show equal commitment to this timetable, but the impasse we are trying to resolve is about the insurance policy if this does not happen.
What I am saying is that if, at the end of 2020, our future relationship is not quite ready, the proposal is that the UK would be able to make a sovereign choice between the UK-wide customs backstop or a short extension of the implementation period. There are some limited circumstances in which it could be argued that an extension to the implementation period might be preferable if we were certain it was for only a short time. For example, a short extension to the implementation period would mean only one set of changes for businesses at the point we move to the future relationship, but in any such scenario we would have to be out of the implementation period well before the end of this Parliament.
The third step is to ensure that, were we to need either of these insurance policies, whether the backstop or a short extension to the implementation period, we could not be kept in either arrangement indefinitely. We would not accept a position in which the UK, having negotiated in good faith an agreement that prevents a hard border in Northern Ireland, none the less finds itself locked into an alternative, inferior arrangement against its will.
The fourth step is for the Government to deliver the commitments we have made to ensure full continued access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal market. Northern Ireland’s businesses rely heavily on trade with their largest market, Great Britain, and we must protect this in any scenario.
Let us remember that all these steps are about insurance policies that no one in the UK or the EU wants or expects to use, so we cannot let this become the barrier to reaching the future partnership we all want to see. We have to explore every possible option to break the impasse, and that is what I am doing.
When I stood in Downing Street and addressed the nation for the first time, I pledged that the Government I lead will not be driven by the interests of the privileged few, but by those of ordinary working families. And that is what guides me every day in these negotiations. Before any decision, I ask: how do I best deliver the Brexit that the British people voted for? How do I best take back control of our money, borders and laws? How do I best protect jobs and make sure nothing gets in the way of our brilliant entrepreneurs and small businesses? How do I best protect the integrity of our precious United Kingdom and protect the historic progress we have made in Northern Ireland? If doing those things means I get difficult days in Brussels, so be it. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. Everybody knows, from the record, that there is plenty of opportunity to question the Prime Minister on these occasions, but the Prime Minister must be heard.
The Prime Minister
The Brexit talks are not about my interests; they are about the national interest and the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom. Serving our national interest will demand that we hold our nerve through these last stages of the negotiations—the hardest part of all. It will mean not giving in to those who want to stop Brexit with a politicians’ vote: politicians telling the people that they got it wrong the first time and should try again. And it will mean focusing on the prize that lies before us: the great opportunities that we can open up for our country when we clear these final hurdles in the negotiations. That is what I am working to achieve, and I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of her statement, and I am pleased she has condemned the horrific murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. But condemnation is not enough; what matters now is what action the Government are prepared to take. Will they now end arms sales to Saudi Arabia?
Moving on to Brexit, I hope our debate today will be conducted without some of the language reported in the press over the weekend. I have to say that every word on Brexit was anticipated: a mixture of failure, denial and delusion. The Conservative party has spent the past two years arguing with itself, instead of negotiating a sensible deal in the public interest. Even at this crucial point, they are still bickering among themselves. The Prime Minister says that 95% of the deal is done, but previously she had told us that
“nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.
Which is it?
The Government’s Brexit negotiations have been a litany of missed deadlines and shambolic failure, and now they are begging for extra time. They promised that the interim agreement would be done by October 2017 and then by December 2017, but it was finally agreed in March 2018. The Prime Minister even missed the deadline for publishing her own Government’s White Paper on Brexit. She said it would be published by the end of June, but it arrived in mid-July, lacking any clarity on the key issues. Crucially, it arrived after the EU summit at which Britain’s proposals were supposed to have been tabled. And just last week, the Government missed their October deadline for agreeing to the terms of the exit deal with the EU—instead the Prime Minister went to Brussels to beg for an extension. The EU had already offered to convene a special summit in November to help the Prime Minister, but it now seems this has been withdrawn as she will not be ready by then either and so now December is being talked about. And the Prime Minister claims her extension of the transition period will be for only “a matter of months”. Is that three? Is that six? Is that 12? Is that 18? How many months is it? Who knows? Certainly the Prime Minister does not. But can the Prime Minister give one straight answer: what will it cost in extra payments to the EU per month during this extension? The Government are only proposing this extension because of their own incompetence.
We have had two and a half years watching the Tories’ failure to negotiate. Now even the Prime Minister does not have confidence that she can negotiate a deal by December 2020—that is another 14 months. What faith can anyone have that extending that deadline by “a matter of months” will help? Perhaps the Prime Minister can inform the House.
The Prime Minister also begged European leaders to come up with creative solutions. The country voted to leave, her Cabinet members said they would take back control, and now the Prime Minister is pleading with the EU to work out how to do it. It does not sound like taking back control; it sounds like a Government and a Prime Minister who are losing control.
The Government are terminally incompetent, hamstrung by their own divisions. The Prime Minister of Lithuania summed up the situation pretty succinctly when he said:
“We do not know what they want, they do not know themselves what they really want—that is the problem.”
I am sure—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There was too much noise when the Prime Minister was addressing the House. Mr Opperman, not only are you a distinguished barrister and a Minister of the Crown, but you are a graduate of the University of Buckingham in my constituency. I cannot believe that you were taught to behave in that way—chuntering noisily from a sedentary position—by lecturers in my constituency.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am sure the whole House would love to hear the Government’s precise and detailed blueprint. Perhaps when she returns to the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister could set out her plan. The whole country is waiting for a plan that works for Britain, not another fudge—kicking the can down the road to keep her party in power.
Much of the current impasse is due to the Northern Ireland border—hardly an issue that can have come as a surprise to the Government. There is a simple solution—a comprehensive customs union with the EU, a solution that would not only benefit Northern Ireland, but help to safeguard skilled jobs in every region and nation of Britain, and with no hard border in Ireland, no hard border down the Irish Sea and good for jobs in every region and nation. That is a deal that could command majority support in this House and the support of businesses and unions. It is Labour’s plan—a comprehensive customs union with a real say for Britain and with no race to the bottom on regulations, standards and rights. The alternative is not no deal: it is a workable plan.
The Government do not even trust their own Back Benchers to have a meaningful vote, with the Brexit Secretary submitting a letter that told us that we must choose between a disastrous no deal and the Government’s deal—a deal that does not yet exist and for which there is now no deadline.
Brexit was supposed to be about taking back control. That is what much of the Cabinet campaigned for, and where have we ended up? Parliament is being denied the chance to take back control and, because of the Government’s vacillation, five years on from the referendum we could still be paying into the EU but with no MEPs, no seat at the Council of Ministers, no Commissioners and no say for this country. Instead of taking back control, they are giving away our say and paying for the privilege. What an utter shambles! Having utterly failed to act in the public interest, will the Prime Minister do so now and make way for a Government that can and will?
The Prime Minister
There was an awful lot in the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about process, but not much about substance, and what Labour actually wants to see. It is incumbent on all of us in public life to be careful about the language we use. There are passionate beliefs and views on this and other subjects, but whatever the subject we should all be careful about our language.
The right hon. Gentleman said a lot about process, as I said, and at one point he seemed to be asking us to set out our plan. I have to say to him that we set out our plan in the White Paper of more than 100 pages back in the summer. He talks about a future relationship of a customs union, but whatever future relationship we have, we do have to deal with the backstop issue. Without a backstop in the withdrawal agreement, there will be no withdrawal agreement. Without the withdrawal agreement, there will be no future relationship—nothing is agreed until everything is agreed—so it does not matter what future relationship we want, we still need to deal with this backstop issue.
The right hon. Gentleman’s position has been that no deal is not acceptable in any circumstances. That means accepting any deal that the European Union wants to give us, including a deal that would carve Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. Perhaps, though, his shadow Chancellor, who made the comment that he was longing for a United Ireland, might actually welcome that.
All I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman is that, throughout all this, all we have seen from the Labour party and from him is them playing politics with this issue. One minute, they want to accept the referendum, the next they want a second referendum. One minute, they want to say that free movement will end, the next they say that free movement is still on the table. One minute, they want to do trade deals, the next they want to be in a customs union that will stop them doing trade deals. He is doing everything he can to frustrate Brexit and trigger a general election. He has voted against sufficient progress, he has tried to block the withdrawal Act, and he has vowed to oppose any deal that the Government bring back. I am looking and working for the right deal in the national interests of this country; he is putting politics ahead of the national interest.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has stated:
“We will not have truly left the European Union”—
I emphasise the words “truly” and “left the European Union”—
“if we are not in control of our own laws.”
Chequers is still on the table. Its common rulebook allows the other 27 EU countries in their Council of Ministers to make our laws for goods and agricultural products with no transcript and no effective veto and undermines the total repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. How can she possibly claim that we will be in control of our own laws and sustain the national interest?
The Prime Minister
May I say to my hon. Friend that, yes, we have proposed that common rulebook? They are rules that our manufacturers say that they will be abiding by in any case. It has been a pretty stable rulebook for many years. However, it is not correct to say that there will not be a parliamentary lock on those rules. Yes, the process of determining any change to those rules will be up to the European Union, but some of those are international standards and we will, as an independent member of the international standards bodies, have a say in relation to those rules. Parliament will have a lock. We have been clear about that and we set it out in the proposals published after the Chequers meeting in July that any decision to accept or to diverge from those rules—there is a process about determining materiality—will be one that is taken by this Parliament.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance notice of her statement today. I share with her the remarks that she made about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, but may I say that the time has come to take action against Saudi Arabia? Prime Minister, stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Do it today.
Rarely have I listened to a prime ministerial statement met with such stony faces. Prime Minister, I have some advice: if you are looking for support, do not look behind you. The Prime Minister returns to the House today from Brussels utterly humiliated. As the clock ticks down, with just a few short months before the UK is scheduled to leave the EU and with Chequers shredded, the UK has no plan to break the impasse and no plan as we head ever closer to the cliff edge. Why? Because the Prime Minister is humiliated and hamstrung by the extreme Brexiteers in her own party.
The EU 27 speak with one clear voice; the Conservative Government squabble among themselves. The divisions within the Tory party are paralysing the UK Government. The extreme Brexiteers on the Government Benches are holding the UK to ransom, leading us all to the brink of a catastrophic no deal.
The Prime Minister comes before us today with nothing but jargon and rhetoric. It is crystal clear that the EU will not accept any deal that does not include the backstop for Northern Ireland. Those who attempt to wreck the backstop will be responsible for the no deal Brexit. The EU is not bluffing.
The comments from Tory MPs in the papers this weekend, using crass and violent language in relation to the negotiations, are abhorrent and irresponsible. Those responsible need to withdraw them and apologise—[Interruption.] Such language has no part to play in our public discourse, and it is disappointing that when the threats of violence against the Prime Minister are talked about, all we hear is background noise and a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the situation. Those Members should be ashamed of themselves. Threats of violence against the Prime Minister or anyone else must be called out and those responsible must be held to account. The Prime Minister must face them down, and she will have our support in that.
The Prime Minister must act to protect jobs and living standards by ensuring that we stay in the customs union and the single market. No more games. I ask her to focus her attention now on securing a deal that delivers economic protection. Will she ensure that any extended transition period must be for a clear purpose and confirm to the House today that her Government will support the Northern Ireland backstop, to avoid a no deal Brexit? Will she also commit to giving the Scottish Parliament a say in the outcome of the negotiations?
Finally, may I ask the Prime Minister to make it her immediate objective to keep us in the single market and the customs union, to focus her attentions on that and to acknowledge that she will not get any deal through this Parliament that stops short of the economic protection of jobs and living standards?
The Prime Minister
Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I said in response to the Leader of the Opposition, that I think it is important that those of us in public life all consider the language that we use.
There seemed to be some confusion in what the right hon. Gentleman was saying about the backstop. The Government are clear that we are negotiating for a backstop in the withdrawal agreement. The question is what the terms of that backstop are. As I have said and as I repeated in my statement, the backstop as proposed by the EU, which would effectively create that customs border down the Irish sea, is not acceptable to the UK Government, hence other proposals have been put forward. We have, as I have said, made significant progress since Salzburg in working with the European Union, particularly on the UK-EU-wide customs territory.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to find a deal that protects jobs, and that is exactly what we have proposed to the European Union—a proposal that protects our economy, protects jobs and ensures that we continue to have a good trading relationship with the European Union, while also being able to develop new trading relationships and improve trading relationships with other countries around the rest of the world.
What is important as we look ahead to getting the deal is that although the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the only issue that could lead to a no deal is not having a backstop in the withdrawal agreement—certainly if there is no withdrawal agreement and no future relationship, there is no deal; we are still at the closing stages of the negotiations and nobody knows absolutely what the result will be—we have to ensure that although, as I think, the best outcome for the UK is a good deal, we continue to prepare for the possibility of no deal. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that what we will not be doing is following the example of the SNP, who want to put Scotland back into the European Union and back into the common fisheries policy, which is not in the interests of Scotland.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that there is a further statement to follow, that coming from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and the remaining stages of a Bill, so there is a premium on brevity, to be exemplified first by Mr John Redwood.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
What advantages does the Prime Minister expect to get in the future partnership arrangement that will be better than leaving and spending the £39 billion at home, with a huge boost to our economy and public services?
The Prime Minister
I believe that a future partnership that protects jobs and ensures that we have a good trading relationship with the European Union is worth negotiating for and worth achieving for the United Kingdom. There are many who say to me in this House that we want to ensure that we have good trading relationships on better than WTO deals around the rest of the world. I agree that having those good trading relationships on better than WTO deals is a good thing, and that is what I want to achieve with the European Union.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
I add my condemnation of the abuse directed at the Prime Minister. The Sunday Times, and The Times this morning, reported that Whitehall, including the Brexit Department, is now carrying out contingency planning for a people’s vote. Can the Prime Minister elaborate and confirm that this has ministerial endorsement?
The Prime Minister
No, that is not correct. The Government do not support a second referendum.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister accept that should her deal fail to secure support in this House with no further road left in negotiations, so that there is parliamentary gridlock, the only and inevitable way forward—whether we like it or not—will be to allow people to decide via either a second referendum or a general election? The former would surely be preferable to the latter.
The Prime Minister
I recognise from other questions that my right hon. Friend has asked me that there is a difference of view between us on the issue of a second referendum. The people voted in 2016—they had that people’s vote—and they decided to leave the European Union. I believe it is our duty—I believe it is part of the issue of faith and trust and the integrity of politicians—to deliver on what people voted for and leave the European Union.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Our position is that the backstop is not necessary, and that it is damaging. The EU has made it clear that the backstop is designed to keep Northern Ireland as part of the customs union territory of the EU. The Prime Minister gave an assurance in the withdrawal agreement that any such backstop and regulatory barriers would have to have the support of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Is that still her position?
The Prime Minister
We did put that out in the joint report, and we stand by what we put in that joint report. It is precisely that suggestion from the European Union—that Northern Ireland be kept in a customs union while the rest of the United Kingdom has a different relationship with the European Union—that this Government have rejected, because we want to ensure that we leave the European Union as one United Kingdom.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I join other colleagues in utterly condemning the use of language that we saw at the weekend, in the fond hope that we will not see any such language in the future. At the start of the Prime Minister’s statement, she talked about the work that had been done on cyber-security and the OPCW. I remain very concerned about the progress that is being made on the security treaty to enable us to maintain high levels of security when we leave the European Union, so that we can continue to keep British citizens, and indeed EU citizens throughout Europe, safe.
The Prime Minister
I hope to reassure my right hon. Friend by saying that we have been making good progress on the issue of internal and, indeed, external security arrangements for our future relationship with the European Union, although discussions and negotiations are still being undertaken to ensure that we can retain the operational capabilities that enable us to work not only to keep our citizens safe, but to keep citizens across the EU safe.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary invited me earlier to put this question to the Prime Minister, so I will. He told the House that he expected the negotiations on the future partnership to be concluded by December 2020. The Prime Minister has just spoken about a short extension of the implementation period, but the Government said back in June, when they published their backstop proposals, that they expected the future arrangements to be in place by the end of December 2021. Could the Prime Minister tell the House which of those dates represents the Government view? If she wants to continue the game of pass the parcel with the question, will she encourage the Brexit Secretary to keep the promise he made to the Brexit Committee to come and give evidence to us after the October European Council?
The Prime Minister
We are working for and expect to have agreed the terms of the future relationship by the end of December 2020, such that the future relationship can come into place on 1 January 2021. When we published the temporary customs arrangement as the customs proposal for the backstop on Northern Ireland in June, we said that, if it were necessary for that backstop to come into place, because for some reason that future relationship could not come into place on 1 January 2021, we would expect that to last no longer than the end of December 2021.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
First, may I say that I concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd)? I believe that most Members on the Government Benches and, indeed, in the House utterly condemn and regard with disdain the tone of some of the language used at the weekend.
Is it not the case that talk of a second referendum at this crucial stage in the negotiations can only undermine the Prime Minister’s negotiating position? Will she carry on, ignore the siren voices and get the best deal she can for the people of this country?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for their comments in relation to certain language that has been used.
I agree that it is important, at this stage of the negotiations, that the European Union is in no doubt that we will be leaving the European Union on 29 March next year and that we are negotiating our withdrawal agreement and our future relationship. My determination is to put the national interest first and get a good deal for the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I have seen a number of scripts around the House of prepared questions. Given the level of interest, may I gently say that, if a colleague has a question of more than 50 words, the device that I would recommend is the use of the blue pencil?
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister and I have had many disagreements on many things, but I stand with her completely against the violent, dehumanising and, frankly, misogynistic language that we have heard. I hope the whole House will condemn it, because it demeans every single one of us.
The Prime Minister has previously said that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Can she tell the House what proportion of the future partnership agreement she thinks has been reached?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments about the use of language.
The position we are in is that 95% of the withdrawal agreement has been agreed, as I said, and a substantial part of the future relationship in relation to security, services, transport and other issues has been agreed, in terms of the structure and scope of that future relationship. The point is that none of this is finally agreed until leaders look at the package and agree the whole package together, hence nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The original technical proposal and the facilitated customs agreement have both been rejected, so what can the Prime Minister conceive that might be brought forward to solve the Northern Ireland problem in the next two or even three years?
The Prime Minister
Actually, those two have not both been completely rejected, as my right hon. Friend suggests. In fact, as I said, we have made substantial progress, and there has been a substantial shift from the EU since Salzburg in agreeing to look at the arrangements for a UK-EU-wide customs backstop, which was exactly what we put forward in the TCA.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Aren’t the hard facts that the European Union will not agree anything that is not in its interests, the Cabinet is split three ways, the House is split at least seven ways, and in terms of any solution the Prime Minister comes up with, half the country will think she has gone too far and the other half will think she has not gone far enough? When will she realise that she has completely lost control of the situation?
The Prime Minister
I think, from the discussions that I have with members of the public on this issue, that the majority of them, regardless of how they voted in the referendum, now have a very simple message to all of us in the House, which is: “Let’s just get on with it and leave the EU.”
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
As we enter the final furlong, with 95% of the agreement reached, does the Prime Minister agree that it has been a cool and calculated approach that has led to this progress? Is it not now time, in the interests of all the businesses in Britain, which want as smooth and frictionless trade as possible, to kick on and get this agreement? Does she agree that it might even be necessary to take the whip out—all within the rules, of course—and push this further, because we have to reach this agreement as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. We should get on and focus on the end point of this, which is getting the agreement, getting a good deal for the UK and enabling us to leave on those good terms.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Will the Prime Minister be clear that she is abandoning the promise of a deal that delivers the exact same benefits, particularly as far as services are concerned, and will she acknowledge that that is yet another pledge that has been broken and therefore yet another reason for a people’s vote?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Lady looks at the various speeches that I have given throughout this process, I have been clear that there would be differences and there would be changes in our relationship with the EU. There will be, but what we are doing is proposing a good relationship with the European Union—a good trading relationship and a good security relationship—which I believe is in the interests of the UK.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The person or persons who directed violent language at my right hon. Friend have thoroughly disgraced themselves. I very much hope that they are discovered and that she will withdraw the Whip from them. What acceleration has been made on preparations for no deal since July?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the supportive comments he has made about the language that was used at the weekend. Significant progress has been made on the no-deal preparations since July, and I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he did on those when he was in the Exiting the EU Department. One can see some of the progress not only from legislation that has been passed in this House, but from the technical notices that have been issued, which have been a crucial part of ensuring that businesses and others outside the Government are aware of what is necessary in a no-deal situation.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Government do seem to have got themselves into a bit of a hole, so it is understandable that they wish to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, but can the Prime Minister not see that attempting to render any vote in Parliament meaningless is the very thing that lends weight to the call for a people’s vote? Would she not prefer the reassurance of going back to the people to ask them if her deal, or any deal, is what they voted for in 2016?
The Prime Minister
We have been very clear that the motion will be an amendable motion, but actually there is a key here: if you went out and asked members of the public what they think MPs should be voting on, I think they would say that they would expect MPs to be able to vote on the deal that the Government bring back from the European Union.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The only politicians’ vote would be one which contrived to deny this House a meaningful say and ignored the 700,000 people who walked past the Prime Minister’s door at the weekend to demand a people’s vote. That is because it is important that everyone has the chance to weigh up the evidence, look at the pros and cons of the actual deal and actually give their informed consent before we undertake this major constitutional, economic and social surgery.
The Prime Minister
On the term “people’s vote”, we must accept across this House that we gave the people a vote on this issue, there was a people’s vote, people voted in larger numbers than they had done before and they voted to leave the European Union. My hon. Friend, like me, will I am sure be concerned about ensuring that the people actually can have some faith in their politicians, and that means our politicians delivering on the vote of the people, not telling them to think again.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Can the Prime Minister give the House an example of a greater voluntary surrender of sovereignty than the transition deal that she now proposes to extend?
The Prime Minister
First, I am not standing here proposing to extend the transition period or the implementation period. What I am doing is saying, how can we ensure that we have a choice of backstop options to ensure there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland in the unlikely circumstances that such a backstop is required? That is the basis on which this other proposal has been put forward, alongside the proposal for a UK-EU-wide customs territory, such as the Government first put forward in June.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has been described as a “bloody difficult” person. I have always found her a very determined person—determined to deliver on the people’s vote that has already taken place. Will she tell us whether she expects the final recommendations to come at 4 am, on another early plane journey, like last time?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and say to him that all too often European negotiations end in the early hours of the morning. We shall work to ensure that we do this in a timely fashion, recognising that we need to get legislation through this House and on the statute book by 29 March next year.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Prime Minister aware that, on Friday, I was speaking in Belfast’s wonderful Titanic centre? Standing there, I was reminded of that fateful journey where the navigation was got wrong, the captain got it wrong, and all the people on that ship ended in the sea. May I urge her to think again about the direction of the negotiations? The purpose of the negotiations is to keep our country safe, secure and sound. Unlike the people behind her, I support her when she does well in Brussels. Go for it and get us a good deal!
The Prime Minister
Going for it and getting us a good deal is exactly what I am working on.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I have no doubt at all that the Prime Minister thinks of every individual person in this country when she is negotiating the best possible deal, but I fail to understand how it can be a politicians’ vote when nearly 700,000 members of the public took to the streets to display their dissatisfaction. I ask her again: what will she do if we come to the position of no deal, which will not get through this House? What other options are there?
The Prime Minister
We should all recall that, in the vote that took place in 2016, larger numbers of people voted than we had ever seen voting before, and the decision was to leave the European Union. We have set out in legislation the process that will be followed by the Government if we are in the situation where a deal brought back from the European Union by the Government and put to this House is rejected by this House.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been so disappointing to hear the Prime Minister be so dismissive of the 700,000 people from across our country who took to the streets on Saturday to demand a people’s vote on the final deal. What does she say to the thousands of young people who led that march but who did not get a say two years ago, whose future will be most adversely affected if she ploughs on with her disastrous plans?
The Prime Minister
What I say to young people is that this Government are working to get a good deal that will ensure that they have a great future in this country outside the European Union.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
During the implementation period, the UK would be subject to all EU rules, including on freedom of movement. Why then does my right hon. Friend continue to rule out membership of the European economic area and the European Free Trade Association as an alternative interim state?
The Prime Minister
What we are of course looking at in relation to the proposals that have been put forward is for a limited period to have the backstop that ensures no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The two proposals that have been put forward deliver on that. Where it would come to the situation, as proposed, where it was a sovereign choice for the UK, of course decisions would have to be taken about the wider issues in terms of the exact arrangements for those proposals, but the key thing is for those proposals to ensure that we have no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
Prime Minister, Chequers is dead, parliamentary maths mean that the current proposal being considered by the EU is dead, and no deal is dead because there is a pragmatic majority in this House that will prevent this economic and social catastrophe for our communities. Will she now switch to EFTA, EEA and time-limited membership of the customs union? History is always kinder to leaders who act in the national interest.
The Prime Minister
I seem to recall the hon. Gentleman asking me a very similar question last Monday, and I am afraid he is not going to get a different answer today. We are working for a good deal in terms of leaving the European Union and ensuring that we have a trading deal that protects jobs in this country.
Mr Speaker
As I often observe, repetition is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Will the backstop have the same legal status as a treaty? Will the agreement have the same legal status as a treaty?
The Prime Minister
Yes. The backstop for Northern Ireland will be part of the protocol that is attached to the withdrawal agreement, and the withdrawal agreement would have the status of a treaty.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Earlier this year, this House voted to stay in the European Medicines Agency, with all that means for the rest of the relationship with the EU. Can I take it, from the Prime Minister’s statement that 95% of the deal is agreed, that we are indeed staying in the EMA?
The Prime Minister
The 95% relates to the withdrawal agreement. We have agreed much of the structure and scope of the future partnership. Staying in the European Medicines Agency is one of the proposals we put forward as part of the plan that came out after the Chequers meeting, our proposals for the future. That is part of the future partnership, not the withdrawal agreement.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the frustration felt by many of my constituents and others that it is now over two years since the referendum and we have agreed that we will not regain control of our laws, borders and money for over four years after the referendum? Does she understand that for many of them and us that is already too long?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely understand. Some people have said to me that we should not have triggered article 50 when we did. I think it was important that we triggered it when we did. We took time to prepare, but then triggered it precisely in order to get this process into place. My right hon. Friend will know the process within article 50 is for two years. That is why we will leave the EU on 29 March 2019. What we are working to ensure is that we get the future relationship in place at the end of that implementation period, an implementation period that I believe was right and necessary to negotiate to ensure that for both citizens and businesses there were not two cliff-edges in the changed relationship with the EU, but we have a smooth and orderly withdrawal and movement into the future partnership.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Can the Prime Minister explain why, if she really has the interests of the people of Northern Ireland in her heart, she recently did not allow the joint leaders who backed remain in Northern Ireland to meet with her? Between them, they represent the majority of voters in Northern Ireland. Is it because she does not want to hear what they have to say because, inconveniently, it does not agree with what she wants?
The Prime Minister
Both I and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland meet the leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland and discuss with them a number of issues, including Brexit.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
A significant number of the 700,000 people who marched for a people’s vote on Saturday were people who run or own their own businesses. They are in a state of despair because they need certainty and they do not have certainty. Two and a half years ago they were told there would be a trade deal in place before we left. Now we are told we will be lucky if we get it in two years. Is this not the truth: the Government’s policy is for us to be in a never-ending transition period to a destiny that is completely unknown, over which we have no say and no control? That is something nobody voted for.
The Prime Minister
No, that is not the Government’s position, that is not what the Government have proposed and that is not what the Government are working on in the negotiations with the European Union. My right hon. Friend is right in saying that business wants certainty as soon as it can have that certainty. That is why we are continuing to work to ensure we can complete the final negotiations—so that business will be able to see what the future deal is and what the future relationship with the European Union will be.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
On Saturday, more than 700,000 people marched peacefully on Parliament and reasonably requested a people’s vote on the final deal. May I urge the Prime Minister to listen to those reasonable voices and resist the thuggish and brutish threats coming from some on the Government Benches behind her?
The Prime Minister
I have answered that question on a number of occasions already this afternoon. I believe it is right that we gave the people the vote in 2016. They voted to leave and we will deliver on that.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition spoke of fudge and shambles, but his policy of leaving the EU but remaining in a customs union would be precisely that. But could my right hon. Friend tell us: in such a situation, whether temporary or permanent, who looks after trade remedies and trade defences of key UK industries such as steel and ceramics? Who sets the tariff policy for the developing world, which at the moment we have through the EU but would like to do on our own? Who is responsible for trade remedies and trade preferences?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, my right hon. Friend, as a former Trade Minister—a position he held with distinction—understands these issues and their intricacies. Of course, in a customs union, trade policy—with all the issues like trade remedies and trade sanctions—will be a matter for the European Union and not the UK. I believe that we should be making those decisions for ourselves here in the UK.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister agree with me and many, many people in Northern Ireland about the remarks of Taoiseach Varadkar at a dinner—at which I understand the Prime Minister was not present—when showing photographs of a terrible atrocity on the border and implying that that was somehow what would happen if there was a hard border? The EU does not want a hard border and will not put one up. We will not put one up. The Republic of Ireland will not be putting one up. Who is going to put this hard border up?
The Prime Minister
We are obviously committed to no hard border, and we have made it clear that in any circumstances, including in a no-deal situation, we would be doing all that we could to ensure that there was no hard border. We would look to work with Ireland and the European Union to ensure that there was no hard border, but there has been no commitment in relation to that.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Given how tantalisingly close we are to a deal, if time were to run out, has the Prime Minister considered, rather than having a general election or a second referendum, the use of applying to extend article 50, even if it is for a limited period, so that she can kick the ball over the line?
The Prime Minister
We have said right from the beginning that we would not be looking to extend article 50. This refers back to an earlier question from one of our right hon. Friends about people actually wanting to see that we are leaving the European Union. I think we owe it to people to deliver on this. What we want now is to have the decisions that finalise the negotiations to ensure that we get that good deal.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Would it not be more honest for the Prime Minister, rather than spinning that this is 95% done—I understand why she wants to do that—to explain that, actually, the divorce terms are merely the clearing of the throat before a five-year, or perhaps a seven-year, legal treaty arrangement on our future trading relationship? Would that not be a more honest representation? If people want to end it soon, give the people a final say so that they can decide what to do.
The Prime Minister
No, the reference to the 95% is a factual description of where we are in relation to the withdrawal agreement. Neither side in this negotiation wants to be negotiating for the period of time that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, which is why both sides will be working to ensure that we have that future relationship agreed by December 2020. I suggest that if he looks at the average time that it takes to conduct trade deals, he will see that many trade deals are done in precisely the sort of time that we are talking about.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I join those who have condemned the excessive and violent language that has been used and hold up my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as a role model, as she is always courteous, even to those who disagree with her on this important matter. Coming to the substance of it, when the implementation period was announced, it was going to be the implementation of what had been agreed. It now seems to be a period for further negotiation, not being sure of where we are going. Does the Prime Minister know where we are going?
The Prime Minister
First, I thank my hon. Friend for the comments that he made about the remarks and language that were used at the weekend.
Yes, we do—we have set out our plan and we are negotiating on the basis of that plan with the European Union. As I say, significant elements of the structure and scope of the future relationship have been agreed. The legal position, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows very well, is that we cannot sign up to legal text in relation to that future relationship until we have left the European Union. I have also said all along that when Parliament looks at the withdrawal agreement, it will also want to have sufficient detail about the future relationship and know what that will be. That is what we are working to deliver.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Can the Prime Minister clarify whether 95% of a withdrawal deal has been agreed with the EU? If it has, why has this House no details of it?
The Prime Minister
I will explain the negotiating process: we sit down and talk about the issues; we get to the point of having a text on the table; that text is looked at by leaders, and they take a decision on the text and the future relationship—that is the point at which the negotiations and the deal are completed; and then this House will be able to see all the details of the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship in deciding whether to accept the deal the Government have negotiated.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given that the EU never makes its final concessions until just before any given deadline, what could possibly be gained in 24 months that could not be gained in 21?
The Prime Minister
The purpose of the backstop is to cover the circumstances in which the future relationship cannot be put in place by 1 January 2021. One example might be if it has not been fully ratified by all the Parliaments in the EU that need to ratify it—the process is going through but has not been completed by the end of December 2020. That is why the backstop is in the withdrawal agreement. It is an insurance policy for that period.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister outline what comprises the 5% that is still to be negotiated?
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
Before entering Parliament, I spent 27 years as a commercial negotiator, but there is no blueprint for this negotiation. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that she will continue to negotiate the best deal for our country and not be knocked off course by the continuous speculation from the sidelines?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. At the very beginning of this process, I said that there would always be comments and statements outside the negotiations. What is important is that I and the Government keep our focus on the negotiations and on getting that good deal.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Let us be clear what the Prime Minister promised in her Lancaster House speech last year. She promised:
“to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two year Article 50 process has concluded”—
not during the transition period or by the end of it. Will she confirm that she will be breaking that promise, that we will not have the detail of a legally binding trade agreement in place before we leave and that she is proposing that we pay a divorce bill of more than £40 billion without getting that trade deal in return?
The Prime Minister
I think there is a misunderstanding about the process that I thought I had explained in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). We cannot finalise and sign the legal text of our future relationship and trade partnership with the EU until we have left the EU, but we can know what that future relationship will be, and that is exactly what we are negotiating and will be part of the final deal.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I ask this question on behalf of those of us who support the Prime Minister and want to go on supporting her. Will she confirm what the Brexit Secretary has just said—that the procedures of the House are quite clear and that if there is no deal, there will be a vote on a neutral motion, and if there is a deal, the House will indeed be able to reject it? Will she make it absolutely clear that only the Government can initiate legislation and that while she is Prime Minister, on her watch, deal or no deal, deal accepted or rejected, she will deliver Brexit on 29 March?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am very happy to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union set out the position in relation to the procedures of this House in response to questions following the urgent question earlier, but I can absolutely guarantee to my hon. Friend that we will be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister said in answer to an earlier question, the House will be voting not on legal certainty about the future relationship—as she keeps saying to Opposition Members—but on a political assertion. We are being asked to vote on uncertainty. Isn’t that right?
The Prime Minister
No, it is not right. It has been clear from the very beginning that it is not possible for the legal treaty, free trade agreement and other aspects to be signed until we are outside the European Union. However, I have also said that we need to ensure that when Members come to vote on the overall package—the withdrawal agreement and the outline of the future relationship—they have sufficient detail to have confidence in the nature of the future relationship. An important aspect is the link that there will be between the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship, because, as the EU itself has said, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that when we leave the common fisheries policy in December 2020, she will not allow our fishing resources to be included in any future trade deal?
The Prime Minister
I am absolutely clear that when we leave the common fisheries policy, we will become an independent coastal state. We will have to sit round the table with others, and negotiate with others, as an independent coastal state, but we will be doing that on our own, for our own purposes. Of course, if the Scottish National party had its way, Scotland would stay in the common fisheries policy, which would be bad for Scottish fishermen.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
This morning I attended a meeting of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. Parties from across these islands expressed a great deal of concern about the state of the negotiations and the impact on our economy, peace and stability. The Irish Government made it very clear that putting a time limit on the backstop would rather defeat the objective, and that it must be legally certain. Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, the purpose of the backstop that we are negotiating is to ensure that if there is a period between the end of the implementation period and the future relationship coming into operation, we can still guarantee no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The best solution to the issue of no hard border—and this has been said publicly by the Taoiseach as well—will be achieved through that future relationship. That is why it is important for us to work on ensuring that the future relationship will be in place for 1 January 2021.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Earlier today, I met a number of business people in my constituency. From the large businesses to the small, the message was “For God’s sake, help her to get a deal over the line.” It may not be perfect—it may not be everything that we want—but a deal we must have. As the pro-business leader of a pro-business party, will my right hon. Friend ensure that she delivers that, and does so without any dogma to get in the way of it?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is exactly what we are doing. We are working for that deal—a deal that is good for business and good for people.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
May I say to the Prime Minister that I found the comments made about her by some of her own MPs at the weekend not only deeply offensive, but deeply misogynistic?
A No. 10 spokesman said recently that
“there can be no withdrawal agreement without a precise future framework”
on trade. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the political declaration will deliver frictionless trade with our largest trading partner—or will we be asked to vote on a blind Brexit?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about the language that was used at the weekend.
What we will seek to do is bring to the House a deal that incorporates the withdrawal agreement, but, alongside that, sufficient detail about the future relationship so that everyone is able to see what the future relationship will be. That will cover more than trade, but trade will of course be a key element of it.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that UK fishermen will not be subjected to an additional 12 months in the common fisheries policy, with the crumbs that Europe throws to us, during any extended implementation period?
The Prime Minister
The interests of fishermen throughout the United Kingdom, and their concern to be out of the common fisheries policy, is one of the key issues that are at the forefront of our thinking as we look at the different options that are being put forward. I also recognise that the timing of negotiations on fishing has a particular impact here. Access to waters for 2021 will be determined in December 2020, and that is an aspect that we have already taken into account in our negotiations with the European Union.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Will the Prime Minister commit herself to guaranteeing unilaterally the rights of the EU citizens who have chosen to make their lives here, in the event of her being unable to strike a deal with the EU?
The Prime Minister
Yes. In the statement I made after Salzburg I made it clear that in a no deal situation we will guarantee the rights of EU citizens.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has my full support in dealing with these complex issues through the prism of the national interest. She will know that when we joined the European Economic Community all those years ago, we did so on a cross-party basis comprising women and men of good will. Should we not now seek to replicate that, to deliver a people’s parliamentary Brexit?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. When it comes to Members across the House voting on the deal that we bring back from the European Union, I hope that all Members will recognise the importance of delivering on the vote of the British people and delivering a deal that will be good for the UK.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
In 2017 the Prime Minister went to the country to get a blank cheque for her approach to negotiating a deal for the UK, and the country said, “No, thank you.” Rather than hectoring the Leader of the Opposition, why does she not reach out, in the spirit of national unity, to try to get a deal in the interests of the country?
The Prime Minister
We are working to get a deal in the interests of the country. As I recall, at last year’s general election 80% of Members of Parliament were elected on the basis that they would deliver on the referendum.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
This morning I received a text message from Steven North, a leading councillor in my constituency and a stalwart of the Conservative party who has been delivering leaflets and knocking on doors for more than 20 years. His text read:
“How can we drag a bad deal on for a year, so that it is watered down even more? Better off sticking to the date, be firm and have no deal”.
Prime Minister, I agree with Steve. Do you?
The Prime Minister
Let me first thank Steve for all the work he has done for the party over many years—as a former councillor, I know how hard councillors work to represent their local communities. One of the problems is that there is an assumption that we are suddenly saying that we have signed up to extending an implementation period by a year; we have not done so. What we are saying is that we need to ensure that we have a backstop in the withdrawal agreement. On the proposal we put forward on a UK-EU-wide customs territory, there has been a substantial shift from the EU. We are now working with the EU on that proposal. The other proposal that has emerged is for us to have the option, as an alternative, of choosing to extend the implementation period for a short period of time, were that to be necessary. I want to work to make sure that neither of those is necessary.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that we have apparently made 95% progress on the withdrawal deal, what percentage progress have we made on the substantive deal? Given the answer that the Prime Minister has already given today, what percentage progress does she now think would be sufficient for the House to vote on the deal: 95%, 100%, 60% or 40%? Does she agree that we seem to be putting our finger in the wind on this one?
The Prime Minister
No, I do not agree. As I have said, we will bring forward detail on the future relationship alongside the withdrawal agreement so that the House knows what the future relationship will be.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister understandably repeated that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. May I ask her equally to repeat tirelessly that it is her decision, and this Conservative Government, that will guarantee the rights of EU nationals, deal or no deal?
The Prime Minister
I know that this is an issue that my hon. Friend has campaigned on in particular. I am very happy to reassure him that it is this Conservative Government who will guarantee the rights of EU citizens, deal or no deal.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
On the question of a second referendum, given where we are now, and given the promises that were made by the Leave campaign, does it not bother the Prime Minister at all that many of those who voted to leave in 2016 did so on a false prospectus?
The Prime Minister
The referendum was held and there were lively and passionate campaigns on both sides of the argument. We gave the people the decision. The people took their decision. We should now deliver on it.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that delivering on the referendum is a matter of trust and honour, and that some of her backstop delays could erode that trust? Worse, it plays into the hands of the EU, whose tactics are delay and duplicity.
The Prime Minister
It is precisely because I am aware of people’s concerns about the possibility of an attempt in some circumstances to keep us in some permanent limbo that we are looking at mechanisms to ensure that a backstop, if it is needed, is there for only a limited period of time to provide that bridge to the future relationship, and ideally it would not have to be used at all.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has told us that parts of the political declaration on the future relationship have been agreed, including on services. What has been agreed on financial services?
The Prime Minister
We have indeed made good progress, as I have said, on transport, services and other elements of the economic partnership, and on the security partnership. We are still in the process of negotiating those details so that we can bring them to the House at the point of final agreement.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
If the transition period is made longer, my understanding is that it will take us into the next EU budget period. If that happens, how much would we need to pay in? Given that we would already have left the EU, how much say would we have over what we pay in?
The Prime Minister
First, as I have made clear, I do not want, intend or expect us to have to go into a further budget period. However, were it the case that a gap appeared between December 2020 and the full start of the future relationship, I am looking at a proposal that would give the UK a choice on which of the backstop options we took forward. Obviously it would be necessary to look at the precise arrangements that would apply in both circumstances so that a clear choice could be made.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I think that the language that was directed at the Prime Minister over the weekend was absolutely disgraceful. There is real concern that the meaningful vote that this House was promised will actually become a meaningless vote. Why will MEPs have a greater say in the UK’s final deal than MPs in this House?
The Prime Minister
I repeat what I said earlier: what we are looking at is an amendable vote. If members of the public are told, “Parliament is going to vote on the deal that the Government bring back from the European Union,” I think that they would expect Parliament to be able to vote on the deal that the Government bring back.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Many businesses are continuing to invest, including Meggitt, with its £130 million supersite in my constituency, but a lack of certainty in the negotiations is causing many projects to be put on hold. What reassurances can the Prime Minister offer to encourage businesses to continue to invest and provide jobs for the future?
The Prime Minister
I fully recognise that we are continuing to see investment decisions being made and jobs created by businesses in this country, as we saw in the excellent employment figures last week. We want to bring about that certainty as quickly as we can, which is why we are working to ensure that we can end the negotiations and present the deal so that businesses know where they stand for the future.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
There have been several hundred extradition agreements between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in recent years. What progress has the Prime Minister made on securing the European arrest warrant for future use after March?
The Prime Minister
I am well aware of the impact that the European arrest warrant had on the ability to extradite between Northern Ireland and Ireland, which is one of the reasons—there are others—why we have been working with the European Union, and made good progress, on that and other aspects of internal security.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
At the European Council meeting were there many discussions on continuing security co-operation? As we saw with the Salisbury incident, it is vital that we continue to work with our allies, regardless of the fact that we are leaving the EU.
The Prime Minister
There was a wider discussion on the importance of continuing to work together on key security issues. Of course, the details of the future relationship on internal security, such as those relating to the European arrest warrant, are being looked at in the negotiations, but there was a very clear sense around the table of the importance of us all continuing to work together on key security issues.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The backstop is an insurance policy. Can the Prime Minister give us an example of any insurance policy she has ever seen or signed up to that was based on an expiry date?
The Prime Minister
I do not know what insurance policies the hon. Gentleman takes out, but most insurance policies have a renewal date.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I have met a great many businesses in Taunton Deane, particularly in the last week, and there is overwhelming support among them for the Prime Minister, but they all agree that they want a clear plan as soon as possible and that they do not want a permanent backstop. Can she assure me that she will press on with her endeavours and never agree to a permanent backstop?
The Prime Minister
Like the businesses that my hon. Friend refers to, I do not want a permanent backstop either. I want to ensure that we can move to the future relationship, and I do not want the backstop to have to be used at all.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Scottish Conservative MPs threaten to resign, then they threaten not to resign. They threaten to bring down the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, then they said that they might not do so. Is she absolutely certain that she has the full support of her hon. Friends from Scotland?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I also welcome the significant contribution that my hon. Friends from Scotland are making to our debates in standing up for Scotland in this Chamber.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
When Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was negotiating the handover of Hong Kong, the final agreement did not see all her starting goals realised, but she did sign a settlement that all sides could live with and that allowed Hong Kong to flourish thereafter. Will my right hon. Friend draw courage from that precedent and ignore some of the outrageous things in the media about her and the negotiations?
The Prime Minister
Any negotiation is about two sides coming together and reaching an agreement that they can both sign up to. Does that mean that both sides get 100% of what they started off wanting? Actually, no, by the very nature of the negotiation. What is important is that we get a good deal out of this and that we work hard to get the sort of deal that we think is in the interests of this country.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I often disagree with the Prime Minister on matters of policy, but I stand in full solidarity with her against the dreadful language that was used and the threats that were made at the weekend. We have only about five months to go until the end of March, so how does she think we should work to eradicate that sort of language and those sorts of threats, particularly towards female MPs, given that we in this House are supposed to set an example?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and as I have said, I am also grateful for the comments of other hon. Members who have shared similar sentiments in their interventions. It is incumbent on all of us to be careful about the language that we use in public, and comments such as the ones she and others have made today are part of encouraging the recognition of the importance of being careful and of carefully considering the impact of the language we use.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Prime Minister has said that she does not want to extend the transition period. Will she make it clear to the EU that if the transition period is extended, we are not going to pay any more money?
The Prime Minister
I have made it very clear that I want both sides to work towards having the future relationship in place by the end of December 2020, and there is a commitment to that. If we do have to bridge, and if we have to make a choice between backstop options—assuming that these two options are available—we would of course have to look at the arrangements for that. We would be negotiating in relation to those arrangements, but we want to ensure that we get a good deal done in time to ensure that the backstop arrangement, whichever it is, does not have to be used.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The NHS and the supermarkets are now stockpiling goods, and the cost of storage is increasing. Will the Government open a compensation scheme in relation to those costs, or will they be passed down to consumers?
The Prime Minister
Commercial bodies will obviously make their own decisions about the arrangements that they have to make, and the last time I looked, the NHS was part of the Government.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I utterly condemn the violent misogynistic language that has been used, whether it be threats of stabbing from voices on my own Benches or threats of lynching from voices opposite. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom Government would never demand that a European Union member state carve off a part of itself as part of any agreement? Does she also agree that it is therefore completely unacceptable to suggest that Northern Ireland should be carved off from the rest of the United Kingdom as we go through this negotiation?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would not require any other EU member state to do that, and it is unacceptable for the EU to require us effectively to carve Northern Ireland away from the United Kingdom with a customs border down the Irish sea. I have made that very clear, and that is why we are looking for alternative backstop proposals.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
A huge number of people marching for a democratic say on the next steps and a fresh assessment of the will of the people should not be ignored by any Government, unless the Government are perhaps not being completely full with us about what they know. Does the Prime Minister think that her deal will leave us better off than the deal we already have as an EU member—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear that we are working for a good deal. Our best days lie ahead of us, but this is about getting a good deal, getting good deals around the rest of the world and ensuring that we build a better and brighter future for the people of this country.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about the progress being made on security co-operation at the European Council. Notwithstanding the big issues that still face her in the negotiations, does she agree that the security relationship is critical, particularly in relation to combating cyber-attacks across international boundaries?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point, particularly in relation to cyber-attacks and to our continuing to work with the European Union on these issues. Concern about cyber-attacks was one of the reasons that the Dutch Prime Minister and I were keen to press the EU to move ahead on this work, to ensure that we can take measures, potentially including sanctions, in relation to this. We will continue to work with them on that.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has completely and utterly dismissed the 770,000 people who marched in London on Saturday and the many hundreds of thousands who would have marched if they had been able to be in London. She is going to fix the vote in this House on her withdrawal deal. What message does that send to the many millions of people who are demanding a people’s vote?
The Prime Minister
I think that I have answered this question, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers that I gave earlier.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Negotiating a good deal is hard; anyone who has negotiated anything will know that it is hard to get a good deal and none of us has tried to negotiate anything like this. May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue to hold her nerve and not to capitulate, as some would have her do? I urge her to hold her nerve and negotiate the best possible deal for my constituents and our country.
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. This is the time when we need to hold our nerve as we come to the end of these negotiations, to get that good deal.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister tell us what practical steps she has taken to build consensus across the parties and across the nation on how this country should move ahead?
The Prime Minister
We are ensuring that everything we are doing is done on the basis of the national interest. That is what this Government have put first and foremost, and we will continue to do so.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I urge my right hon. Friend to pay no heed to the vile comments in Sunday’s papers, but instead to remain focused on the prize of delivering frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland, between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and between the UK and the rest of the EU, because so many jobs and livelihoods depend on getting that right.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I can give her the assurance that we are absolutely focused on getting that good deal and that good trading relationship that will protect jobs here in the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When we entered the common market in 1973, the fishing sector had its rights denied and its fishing waters reduced. Can the Prime Minister confirm that we will take back our coastal waters when we leave the EU on 29 March and that our fishing sector will experience the boom years that are yet to come?
The Prime Minister
Indeed, we fully recognise the concerns about the way in which the fishing industry was treated in the negotiations when we entered the European Economic Community back in the 1970s. I am clear that we will become an independent coastal state and that we will be able to take back that control. We will be able to make those decisions and negotiate on our own behalf on those issues, rather than it being done by the European Union. Also, we want to see how we can enhance our fishing industry around the United Kingdom in the future.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
My right hon. Friend said that an extension to the implementation period was undesirable. I urge her to use far stronger language when it comes to the common fisheries policy and confirm that we will no longer remain tied to the CFP beyond December 2020.
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, the interests of fishermen across the whole United Kingdom are among those at the forefront of our thinking as we look at all the arrangements and proposals. As I have said, I recognise that there are timetabling issues in relation to our ability to negotiate as an independent coastal state once we leave the European Union. I assure my hon. Friend that we will put those concerns at the forefront of our thinking.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I welcome the comments in the Prime Minister’s statement condemning the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. However, in answer to a parliamentary question from me following the murder, the British Government confirmed that they would still send high-ranking diplomats to the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh this week, despite all the spin about removing the Secretary of State for International Trade from the delegation. Following further revelations over the weekend, rather than empty gestures and words, is not a full boycott more appropriate and a strategic rethink of our relations with Saudi Arabia?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will have heard at the beginning of my statement of my deep concern about what happened to Jamal Khashoggi and what has been revealed. We need to ensure that we get absolutely to the truth of what happened. The original proposal was that Secretary of State would attend that event, and we have been very clear: it was right that we decided that there would be no ministerial attendance.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The west midlands and the town of Redditch are creating new businesses at a record rate due to our innovative and creative entrepreneurs. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that she continues to strain every sinew to ensure their future prosperity?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am happy to give that reassurance to my hon. Friend. Not only in relation to our negotiations with the European Union, but in relation to our modern industrial strategy, we are ensuring that we are a great place or one of the best places in the world to set up and grow a business.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Prime Minister agree that a meaningful vote is meaningful only if votes on amendments come before the vote on the principle of the deal? If that does not happen, she will be sent home to think again by this Parliament. If she loses that meaningful vote, will she accept that she has lost the confidence of the House?
The Prime Minister
We have been very clear that the vote will be an amendable vote. Obviously, the Procedure Committee—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to listen to the answer. The Procedure Committee is considering the nature of the vote, but, as I have said to a number of Opposition Members, if he asked members of the public, they would say that they expect Parliament to vote on the deal the Government bring back.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
On Thursday, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said from the Dispatch Box that he was invincibly confident that we would be an independent coastal state by December 2020. Does the Prime Minister share his confidence and will she make the same commitment?
The Prime Minister
I am confident because I am confident that we can negotiate our future relationship such that it comes into place on 1 January 2021.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It was disturbing to see the vile language towards the Prime Minister regarding EU negotiations. It affects not only the individual but their whole family. It was particularly sobering because, only a week ago, an individual was charged in relation to abusing me. People watch how we treat each other in the House and we have to act as role models. Does the Prime Minister agree that, as elected Members, we must take a raincheck and never perpetuate abuse in politics?
The Prime Minister
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady has been subject to abuse that has led, as I understand from her question, to somebody being charged or to action being taken against an individual. If we are to have good, healthy debate in this country on matters of policy and politics—there will be strong disagreements and strong views held—it is very important that we conduct our discussions in a way that does not lead to abuse. We need to conduct discussions in a respectful manner.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The Prime Minister has been clear today that a second referendum is not on the table because we must respect the views of the 17.5 million who voted to leave, but is there another reason why it is inappropriate to have another referendum with remain on the agenda: it would prejudice our negotiations by creating an incentive for the European Union to give us an extremely bad deal?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right not only that we owe it to the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union, but that it needs to be very clear to the European Union that we will be leaving and that there is no question of that second referendum. That was why I was surprised that the shadow Foreign Secretary has said today that, if there were a second referendum under Labour’s proposal, remain could be on the ballot. That is going back on the vote that people gave in 2016.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
On the security aspect of the Prime Minister’s statement, did the EU Council discuss the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty—the INF treaty—which America is expected to announce this week that it is going to leave? That will not help to bring Russia back into compliance and will be dangerous for us all. Does she have a strategy to ensure that that does not happen?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman asks whether that was discussed at the European Union Council. It was not, but a number of other security matters were. We continue to believe that it is important for that treaty to continue, but the parties to it must abide by it.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Should not the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have the opportunity to give their consent to any deal she brings back—this should also happen in the event of no deal—that makes any change to the Irish border as set out in the Good Friday agreement?
The Prime Minister
We are very well aware of the obligations and commitments we have as a result of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We are working to ensure that we maintain all of them because we recognise the importance of the agreement.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Electoral Commission has ruled that the leave campaign broke electoral law with regard to spending limits. Does the Prime Minister believe that that in any way undermines the result of the referendum? If she does not, can she explain what is the point of electoral law?
The Prime Minister
I understand that the matter to which the hon. Lady refers is subject to judicial proceedings. We gave the people a vote. The people made their choice and we are delivering on that choice.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that, if the meaningful vote does not succeed in this House, she intends to carry on as Prime Minister until 29 March next year and deliver a no deal Brexit. Is that really her position?
The Prime Minister
I told my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that we will be leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019, and we will.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The status of British-Irish citizens in Northern Ireland is protected under the Good Friday agreement, which means that, if they wish, they can legally renounce their British citizenship and receive no detriment to their social or democratic rights. Will the Prime Minister therefore state unequivocally that people born in Northern Ireland will continue after Brexit to be able to be solely Irish and to identify as Irish and therefore as EU citizens?
The Prime Minister
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that if he looks at the joint report that we agreed with the European Union last December, he will see that that matter was covered and that we are guaranteeing the continuing rights of those citizens.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
No one in the Labour Party underestimates how difficult the Prime Minister’s job will be when she sits at the negotiating table with her MPs trying to hammer out a deal. If she is so confident of her position and of her public support, and given her failure to build consensus and compromise in the House, instead of losing a politicians’ vote on her deal, as is now likely, why will she not put her deal to the British people to have their say over, and give their authority to, the final deal?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has found an ingenious way of asking the same question that some of his colleagues have asked. I answered that question earlier. This House will have a meaningful vote on the deal and, obviously, following that meaningful vote, if that deal is agreed, we will put the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill in place. It will be this Parliament that will determine that Bill and progress it through Parliament.
I return to the point that it is so important that politicians on both sides of the House recognise that, having given the vote to the British people, we deliver on the vote of the British people and that we in no way, as the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Labour party are suggesting, attempt to go back to the people and try to tell them that they got the first decision wrong. No, they have made their decision and we are delivering on it.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Prime Minister has mentioned the unique arrangements with the Government of remain-voting Gibraltar in order to protect their economy. Why has she ruled out the same unique considerations for the people of remain-voting Scotland?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the geographical position of Gibraltar is a particular issue, and obviously arrangements have been put in place over a number of years with Spain. That situation is different from that of Scotland, which of course, as part of the United Kingdom, will be leaving the European Union. Gibraltar will be leaving alongside the United Kingdom and we will ensure that the arrangements are in place to protect its economy.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has estimated that there needs to be a six-week stockpile of food and medicine. What about manufacturing companies, such as Ford in my constituency, and the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide components? What if they cannot stockpile for six weeks? Will there be compensation for industry and for those employees who may be laid off because of chaos at our ports?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady will have seen the various arrangements that are being put in place, which are mentioned in the technical notices that we have issued. We are making preparations for no deal, because we have not come to the conclusion of these negotiations. I believe that coming to a good deal is the best outcome for the United Kingdom, and I think the European Union side recognises the importance of coming to a good deal with the United Kingdom. A good deal for us will be a good deal for them.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Prime Minister says that negotiations with the EU are 95% settled. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has been taking evidence on trade, and witness after witness has made it clear how vital protected geographical indications are to Scotland’s interests. What assurances can she now give us that such protections for the unique products of Scotland and the UK will remain as strong as they are now?
The Prime Minister
Geographical indications are one of the issues we have spent considerable time considering with the European Union, because we recognise their importance. The hon. Lady says I said that 95% of everything is agreed, but 95% of the withdrawal agreement has been agreed.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Some 1.5 million young people have not had their chance to have a say on Brexit, yet they are eligible to vote. On the biggest issue facing us since the second world war, why deny them the chance to vote on this crucial issue for their future?
The Prime Minister
If we followed the position that everybody, in any year, who becomes eligible to vote should be able to vote on this issue, we would end up with a never-ending set of votes on Brexit, rather than doing what the British people want, which is to leave the European Union and to do it on good terms.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister has on many occasions referred to the result of the 2016 referendum. Does she accept that, in a democracy, people have the right to change their mind?
The Prime Minister
Of course people sometimes change their mind, but the Government were very clear at the time, and it was not just the Government. In the vote in Parliament, the overwhelming majority of Members of this House agreed that there should be a referendum and that the choice should be given to the British people. [Hon. Members: “Not us.”] So the SNP did not think that the British people should be able to decide their future?
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
If nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, is it possible that a successful amendment to the meaningful vote could send the Prime Minister back to renegotiate?
The Prime Minister
We are talking about coming to an endpoint in the negotiations, agreeing a withdrawal agreement and the future relationship, and then bringing that agreed deal back for this House to vote on.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister is keen to avoid a permanent customs union and single market arrangement, despite some Brexiteers promising the exact same benefits. If she is unable to achieve the exact same benefits, is it time to let the people take back control either through a general election or a third referendum—after 1975 and 2016—on this issue?
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Prime Minister must know that, if she continues to hold herself to ransom on the whim of the minority of Members of this House who subscribe to either the ERG or the DUP, it will be a choice between a rotten deal and no deal. When will she see sense and seek to find consensus among the 600 Members who are not members of either of those two damaging splinter groups?
The Prime Minister
I hope we will find consensus among the 650 Members of this House when we bring a good deal back to vote on.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
If we have to accept a backstop, who will set the timescale for that backstop? The Prime Minister of the Irish Republic says that they will use the veto to ensure it is a never-ending backstop. Northern Ireland would then never have the benefit of leaving the EU.
The Prime Minister
The best way of ensuring no hard border is through the future relationship. The backstop we are looking at in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement is to cover any gap between the end of the implementation period and the coming into force of that future relationship. I want to ensure that the future relationship is there at the end of the implementation period so there is no question of a backstop. I am also clear that there can be no question of us finding ourselves left in that backstop in permanent limbo and unable to put that future relationship in place. That is exactly what we have been clear about in the negotiations.
Death of Jamal Khashoggi
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the death of Jamal Khashoggi.
From the moment that Jamal Khashoggi was reported missing after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October, extremely disturbing reports emerged about his fate. On Friday, we received confirmation that Mr Khashoggi had indeed suffered a violent death, and the Saudi Foreign Minister has since described it as murder.
The Government condemn Mr Khashoggi’s killing in the strongest possible terms. Today the thoughts and prayers of the whole House are with his fiancée, his family and his friends, who were left to worry for more than two weeks only to have their worst fears confirmed. After his disappearance, the Government made it clear that Saudi Arabia must co-operate with Turkey and conduct a full and credible investigation. Anyone found responsible for any offence must be held fully accountable.
On top of our concerns about the appalling brutality involved lie two other points. First, Mr Khashoggi’s horrific treatment was inflicted by people who work for a Government with whom we have close relations. And secondly, as well as being a critic of the Saudi Government, he was a journalist. At the time of his death, Mr Khashoggi wrote for The Washington Post and had contributed to The Guardian. Because in this country we believe in freedom of expression and a free media, the protection of journalists who are simply doing their job is of paramount concern. On 9 October, I conveyed this message to the Saudi ambassador in person and to the Saudi Foreign Minister by telephone. I instructed the British ambassador in Riyadh to emphasise our strength of feeling to the Saudi Government at every level. Last week, my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary cancelled his attendance at a forthcoming conference in Riyadh. On 17 October, I met Fred Ryan, the chief executive of The Washington Post, and I spoke again to the Saudi Foreign Minister this weekend.
On Friday, the Saudi Government released the preliminary findings of their investigation. They later announced the arrest of 18 people and the sacking of two senior officials, which is an important start to the process of accountability. But I will say frankly to this House that the claim that Mr Khashoggi died in a fight does not amount to a credible explanation. There remains an urgent need to establish exactly what happened on 2 October and thereafter.
The incident happened on Turkish soil, so it is right that the investigation is being led by the Government of Turkey. They now need to establish who authorised the dispatch of 15 officials from Saudi Arabia to Turkey; when the Government in Riyadh first learned of Mr Khashoggi’s death; what became of the body; why there was a delay in allowing Turkish investigators to enter the consulate; and why it took until 19 October to disclose that Mr Khashoggi had died 17 days earlier. This matters because only after a full investigation will it be possible to apportion responsibility and ensure that any crimes are punished following proper due process.
Last week, I spoke to both my French and German counterparts, and the House will have noticed the strong statement jointly released yesterday by Britain, France and Germany. The actions Britain and our allies take will depend on two things: first, the credibility of the final explanation given by Saudi Arabia; and, secondly, our confidence that such an appalling episode cannot and will not be repeated. We will, of course, wait for the final outcome of the investigation before making any decisions.
Hon. Members know that we have an important strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia, involving defence and security co-operation, which has saved lives on the streets of Britain. We also have a trading partnership that supports thousands of jobs. Although we will therefore be thoughtful and considered in our response, I have also been clear that, if the appalling stories we are reading turn out to be true, they are fundamentally incompatible with our values and we will act accordingly. Indeed such reports are also incompatible with Saudi Arabia’s own stated goal of progress and renewal. That is why the extent to which Saudi Arabia is able to convince us that it remains committed to that progress will ultimately determine the response of the UK and its allies, and we will continue to convey our strength of feeling on this issue to every level of the Saudi leadership.
In his final column, published in The Washington Post after his death, Jamal Khashoggi lamented the lack of freedom of expression in the Arab world. Let us make sure that the lessons learned and actions taken following his death at least progress and honour his life’s work. I commend this statement to the House.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
First, may I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and join him in sending condolences to Mr Khashoggi’s family and his fiancée, Hatice, a lady who waited in anguish outside the consulate for 11 hours while the Saudi butchers went about their barbaric work? She wrote this weekend:
“They took your bodily presence from my world. But your beautiful laugh will remain in my soul forever.”
The worst aspect of this disgraceful murder is that none of us has been remotely surprised about it. For the past three years, my party has warned about the actions of Mohammed bin Salman, first as the architect of Saudi policy on Yemen and then since his elevation to Crown Prince—doubling the rate of executions in his first eight months; kidnapping and beating up the Prime Minister of Lebanon and forcing him to resign; and jailing women’s rights activists and threatening to behead them. All those things have shown a man with no respect for the rule of law, no respect for international boundaries and no tolerance for dissent, all of which spelt the end for Jamal Khashoggi.
Of course, we have seen the Crown Prince’s true face most vividly in his continuing campaign in Yemen: a strategy of blockade and bombardment that has killed thousands of civilians in airstrikes and put millions of children on the brink of starvation. When we look back at his air campaign, with the bombings of weddings, funerals and school buses, we have seen a repeated pattern played out. When major civilian casualties are reported, first they deny the reports are true; then they deny responsibility; and when the proof becomes incontrovertible, they say it is all a terrible mistake, they blame rogue elements, promise those will be punished and say it will not happen again—until the next time, when it does. This is exactly the same pattern we have seen here, which speaks of a Crown Prince who takes his allies for fools and relies on the fact that his lies will be believed, he will be exonerated and everyone will return to business as usual once the publicity has subsided—well, not this time. Enough! It must not happen again.
The Government must wake up to the reality of who the Crown Prince is. It is just seven months since the Prime Minister rolled out the red carpet for him at Chequers, fawned all over him and hailed him as a great reformer. How utterly foolish she looks now, as some of us predicted she would do. The new Foreign Secretary has the chance to be different. He has just said, as he did on Friday morning, that if these stories are true there will be consequences for Britain’s relationship with Riyadh. But I ask him: how much more confirmation does he need? It is time to move on from asking what happened in Istanbul and who gave the orders—we all know the answers. The question is: what will the consequences that he promised be?
I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider three immediate steps. First, will he use the new Magnitsky powers included in the sanctions Bill to apply financial penalties on all individuals, up to and including the Crown Prince himself, who ordered and carried out this murder? Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary accept that UK arms sales for use in Yemen must be suspended pending a comprehensive, UN-led investigation into all alleged war crimes? Thirdly, more than two years on since the UK presented its draft resolution to the UN demanding a ceasefire in Yemen, will he finally ignore the informal Saudi veto hanging over that resolution and at last submit it to the Security Council? Those are three ways to show Saudi Arabia that there are consequences for its actions, three ways to end its impunity and persuade it to change its ways, and three ways to show this Crown Prince that we will no longer be played for fools—we have had enough.
Mr Hunt
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her statement and I share the horror that she expressed so powerfully to this House, but I will say this: she will know that, in my position, she would not decide what actions to take until the investigation was complete. I simply say to her—[Interruption.] The investigation, which someone has talked about from a sedentary position, is being conducted at the moment by the Government of Turkey, and it is not yet complete. We do not yet have the results of that investigation. There is a great deal at stake that is very important for the people of this country, including counter-terrorism co-operation and the jobs of people who depend on trade with Saudi Arabia. So although I believe all of us in this House share the outrage that the right hon. Lady feels—if these stories are confirmed—we have to wait for that investigation, and I know she would do exactly the same if she was in my shoes.
I want to make this point about the three suggestions that the shadow Foreign Secretary made. First, the Magnitsky Bill is a very important piece of legislation. It cannot be enacted in this country until we have left the European Union, but we will certainly be talking to EU partners about how we can act collaboratively using EU structures. In fact, we have already had discussions about whether we should extend our sanctions regime to individuals responsible for human rights violations, which would allow precisely that to happen. But all these actions are far more effective when they are taken in concert with our European and American allies. Those are the discussions we are all having, but what we are all saying is that it would be wrong to make any decisions until we actually know what has happened. We have heard all sorts of media reports about these recordings, but to my knowledge none of us have actually seen transcripts or heard these recordings. The Turks say that all this stuff is going to be published. We do need to wait until we can see clearly the hard evidence as to what has happened. As I have made very clear this afternoon, if they turn out to be true there will be consequences and of course it will have an impact on the relationship with Saudi Arabia.
With respect to the other two points that the right hon. Lady mentioned, the situation in Yemen is heart-breaking. There is a humanitarian crisis at the moment—
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
There’s a war going on.
Mr Hunt
Indeed there is. I spoke to David Miliband about this when I was in New York for the UN General Assembly—perhaps that name is not supposed to be mentioned any more on the other side of the House. I urge the right hon. Lady to recognise that the faults in the crisis in Yemen go both ways. Saudi has made terrible mistakes, but missiles are also being fired from Yemen into Saudi—in fact, seven missiles have been fired at Riyadh—and the Saudi coalition is acting under the authority of UN resolution 2216.
Owing to our relationship with Saudi, we are able to press them hard to embrace a political solution, and that is what I did when I met the Saudi Foreign Minister on 27 September. I spoke to him about this on 16 August. I also met the Emirati Foreign Minister on 6 and 27 September to make that point. We are able to have that influence precisely because we have a relationship, but if we took the actions that the right hon. Lady suggests, our influence with Saudi and Emirates would be precisely zero, and the humanitarian crisis would most likely last longer.
The right hon. Lady talked about arms sales. The procedures we follow in this country, as she well knows, are among the strictest in the world. They were introduced by the late Robin Cook in 2000 and strengthened under the Conservative-led coalition in 2014. Far from selling arms left, right and centre, we do not sell to a number of large markets such as China and we do not sell to friendly Governments such as Lebanon, Libya and Iraq. In July 2017, the High Court ruled that our sales to Saudi Arabia were compliant with those regulations, but we keep the situation constantly under review, and that will include any implications that arise from the results of the Kashoggi investigation.
We are consistent in our championing of human rights across the world, but when I wanted to take action against Russia for the first ever chemical weapons attack on British soil, I was told by the Leader of the Opposition not to take action—action that was later supported by our European friends—but to return to dialogue. The difference between this side of the House and that side is not what we believe in, it is how we get there. It is our belief that British influence depends on British strength.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am sure the whole House joins in expressing our sympathy to the Kashoggi family and his fiancée. Can I ask my right hon. Friend to talk a little about the situation we are in with Saudi Arabia? We have gone from having something that was far from a democracy, but was at least a consultative monarchy, to what is in many ways a unipolar autocracy under the Crown Prince. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this injection of vulnerability and instability into the Saudi regime is one that we should all be concerned about, but no one more than King Salman himself, who has allowed this instability in his kingdom, his rule and his house?
Although this vile murder stands alone for its horror, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is part of a pattern of abuse of press freedom that we have seen against YouTubers, critics and other writers in Saudi Arabia, and that therefore we should be very clear that this is not an individual act? The United Kingdom has been nothing if not a bastion for free speech and liberty of expression, and we must be firm in this instance too.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend speaks extremely powerfully and he accurately points out the fact that autocracies are inherently less stable than countries that have democratic institutions, and there is a higher risk of appalling violations of human rights. It is fair to say that in the case of Saudi Arabia over recent years there has been a pattern of deterioration, but there have also been some conflicting signals, such as allowing women to drive and other things going in the opposite direction.
What I said clearly in my statement was that the impact in terms of consequences for our relationship with Saudi Arabia will depend on the confidence that we have that these kinds of incidents cannot and will not be repeated. Giving us confidence in the reform and renewal process, which is official Saudi policy, will be essential, and that needs to take on board many of the things my hon. Friend said.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
We on the Scottish National party Benches also send our condolences to the family of Jamal Kashoggi. Like so many others in the House, we are appalled by his murder by this—frankly—criminal act, regardless of how we look at it. We have seen acts throughout the world that show that the rules-based system is clearly under threat, and that should concern us all. We have rightly called out the Russians, so what consideration is being given to similar action against those who are found guilty of perpetrating this act? What independent investigations are taking place with the UK Government?
I welcome the remarks by the shadow Foreign Secretary and others about the use of the Magnitsky provisions, and I recognise what the Foreign Secretary has said about working with our European partners, because that will be vital. Freedom of press is critical here. It is critical when journalists are targeted in Turkey, in Saudi Arabia, in Russia or elsewhere in the world. We have to target those individuals who are found to be guilty, and the Foreign Secretary will have support from these Benches if he does so.
The Foreign Secretary remarked, on the heart-breaking scenes we have seen in Yemen, that fault goes both ways. Millions are affected by a man-made famine—a man-made disaster. He has also recognised that there is no military solution to the conflict in Yemen. If fault goes both ways and there is no military solution, why are we continuing to sell arms? Why can we sell arms to one of the perpetrators of that conflict when some of our European partners have made the decision to stop such arms sales? What is the difference between the UK and Germany, for example?
Mr Hunt
Let me take all of those points. When it comes to arms sales, we have strict guidelines in place, and we are following those guidelines. They involve an independent assessment as to whether the licences that we grant for arms sales present a clear risk of a future breach of international humanitarian law. We will keep those constantly under review. With respect to the situation in Yemen, I hope that he, like me, is proud that in the last year we have contributed £170 million to famine relief, one of the biggest contributions of any country.
With respect to the rules-based international order, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and it is a grave cause for concern that there are a growing number of breaches across the world. The rules-based order that we all want to protect has to be one that is based on values. What is shocking about the stories that we hear about what potentially happened in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul is the fact that it so clearly contravenes the values in which we all believe.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned other points about which I will happily write to him.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
It grieves me to have to say this, as a friend of the Saudis for nearly 40 years, but the Saudi explanation on this matter is completely implausible, and there can be no doubt that the order for this terrible crime came from the very top. Therefore, as good friends and allies of Saudi Arabia for many years, it behoves us to be extremely robust and candid with the Saudi Government. Yes, we have vital security and commercial interests with Saudi Arabia, and we do not wish just to blow them up. It is wrong to drop an inconvenient friend, but we in this country cannot tolerate such vile and brutal behaviour, and it cannot be allowed to pass without consequence.
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend puts it characteristically powerfully, not least because of his deep understanding and knowledge of the Saudi regime. Sometimes friends have to speak very frankly to each other. All I say is that, when we have full accountability for the crimes that have been committed, which we note that the Saudi Foreign Minister himself has described as murder, that accountability must extend to the people who gave the orders for any crime that was committed and not just to the people who were there on the ground, and that is an essential part of this investigation.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I urge the Foreign Secretary to rethink the Government’s policy on Yemen. Yes, he is right that we should be proud of our humanitarian aid, and, yes, he is right that there are appalling atrocities committed by the Iranian-backed Houthis and al-Qaeda, but we need to rethink this relationship with Saudi Arabia. I urge him to consider the proposals from the shadow Foreign Secretary today for a new UN resolution, for an independent UN inquiry and, in the meantime, for us to suspend sales of arms to Saudi Arabia that might be used in Yemen.
Mr Hunt
I do hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I do think that the situation is such that we have constantly to keep under review what is happening in Yemen. Although I have been Foreign Secretary for only three months, I can reassure him that I have been very involved in what is happening in Yemen. I have had four meetings with individuals directly involved on the ground. The truth is that this is a very, very difficult situation because, as he rightly said, there is fault on both sides. The Security Council still believes that the Martin Griffiths’ approach is the right one to unlock the problems there, but the situation is very intractable. Both sides still seem to have the view that a military solution is possible. That is not our view. Our view is that the only solution here is a political one and we need to see much faster movement towards a proper political dialogue.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The whole House should welcome the clear and measured statement of the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. In particular, his reference to the Magnitsky provisions and to working with our allies, which the House insisted on being passed earlier this year in the face of what was a breathtaking and extraordinary act of state terrorism. Will he use this opportunity, as the new British Foreign Secretary, to review Britain’s position as a good and candid friend of Saudi Arabia and move from supporting the Saudi coalition on Yemen, which is indubitably engaged in perpetrating a famine, destroying vital infrastructure from the air and killing innocent civilians, to a position of mediation and neutrality designed to end the fighting, broker a ceasefire and secure meaningful negotiations?
Mr Hunt
I always listen very carefully to what my right hon. Friend says. I know that he has immense personal experience and connections with people in Yemen. I want to reassure him that our position on Yemen is not dictated by the strategic partnership that we have with Saudi Arabia. What we say to Saudi Arabia and the UAE is that we are absolutely clear that there needs to be a political process. I believe—I have been in the job only a short time—that the partnership that we have with Saudi Arabia and the Emirates means that our voice is much more listened to than it otherwise would be. None the less, the situation on the ground is appalling and it persists and we need to continue to do everything we can to seek a resolution.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that it is right that the Turkish authorities should lead the investigation. Has that been made crystal clear to the Saudi authorities who seem to be implying that they can conduct their own investigation?
Mr Hunt
That is a very important point, which is why, in my statement, I issued a list of questions that I think the investigation needs to answer to be credible. In particular, we need to recover the body and to find out why these 15 people were in Turkey and what their purpose was. We have not heard any of that. From my perspective, having credible answers to all these things is a very important element as to whether this investigation is credible at all.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
In Riyadh, the crocodile tears of the reported condolences of Mohammed bin Salman to Jamal Khashoggi’s son, Salah el-Din Khashoggi, who is under a travel ban—he is effectively a hostage for his father’s opinions—are particularly stomach turning. The Foreign Secretary told us that we must have confidence that these matters will not be repeated, but I do not see how we can have confidence that that would be the case if Mohammed bin Salman remains in place. If the lessons are to be learned and we are to honour Jamal Khashoggi’s life work by ensuring a more open society in Saudi Arabia where criticism is seen as an asset to good policymaking and where there is a more open press to report this criticism, it can only come if there is a change of Government at the very top.
Mr Hunt
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said as vice-chairman of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia. What he said echoes the words of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee as well, which is that political reform and progressing that political reform is, in the end, the only way that the rest of the world will really have confidence that this kind of thing will never be repeated. That is the point that we will be making loud and clear to the Saudi authorities.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
A free press is essential to scrutinise power wherever it may be. If the Foreign Secretary is truly to honour Jamal Khashoggi’s death, as he clearly wishes to do, he will commit today to challenging anywhere and everywhere any Government who seek to persecute, torture or in any way hold back the actions of a free press. Can he tell us a bit more about what he will be doing to promote that value worldwide?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. I do agree with her because attacks on journalists are becoming more frequent and they strike at the heart of everything we believe in when it comes to our democratic process. So, what can we do? First, what have I done? I make a point of raising the issue of journalists whom I am worried about with any regime that I meet—I raised the case of Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, the Burmese Reuters journalists, when I met Aung San Suu Kyi. That is a practical thing and it is very important. I want all British embassies around the world to engage in that work where we have concerns about the welfare of journalists and about due process for journalists in prison, but there is a question as to whether we need to engage in a wider campaign to highlight the issue of media freedom, and that is something that we are considering at the moment.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Further to that question, without in any way wishing to diminish the horror of what happened to Mr Khashoggi, is the Secretary of State aware that Mr Khashoggi is one of 72 journalists, citizen journalists and media assistants who have been killed so far this year, according to Reporters Sans Frontières? May I, therefore, very much welcome his statement about looking to see what more can be done to protect journalists and urge him to pursue that internationally?
Mr Hunt
I am very happy to heed the advice of my right hon. Friend on that point. I had not heard the 72 number, but it is very sobering. All I would say is that, at the moment, there is a worrying trend, almost a fashion, towards autocracy and regimes thinking that they can attack freedom of expression and media freedom with impunity. That is something that the UK could never stand aside and allow to happen.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the gravity with which he has addressed this outrage. He should be aware that the Committees on Arms Export Controls, on which I sit, have considered that it would be a good step for this country to take to ensure end-use certification for any arms that are sold. The United States do it, and it would be a demonstrable and transparent way in which we could ensure the end use for any arms sold. Is that something that he would consider in the course of how we assess our response to this outrage?
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on striking a measured tone in an extraordinarily difficult situation. I think that things will now unravel quite quickly in the Royal Kingdom, and the United Kingdom has the opportunity to play a unique role with so many in the Trump Administration compromised by their personal relations with some of the senior Saudis. If things are to change in the region and there is to be a rebalancing, will my right hon. Friend commit to playing a leading role and indulging in some shuttlecock diplomacy to get around the UAE in particular, Oman, Egypt, Kuwait and other like-minded countries to make sure that we can be part of the refashioning of a more open Saudi Arabia, which is what we had hoped was beginning to happen?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to make that commitment. I totally agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of the Gulf Co-operation Council states. I agree also that we still have a lot of influence and many friends across the region and that our voice is still listened to. We have an obligation to use that influence as wisely as we can.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
There have been serious allegations in recent days that individuals who were potentially involved in this incident have been in and out of Government buildings here, including this place. I can confirm one, as one of the individuals met me to put pressure on me because I had been critical of Saudi policy on Yemen. What does the Foreign Secretary have to say about these allegations, and will he be changing his public or private advice to Members of this House, journalists or members of the public about travel to Saudi Arabia or entry into any of their consulates or embassies in any other country—or, indeed, in this country?
Mr Hunt
We keep our travel advice constantly under review. For example, I have recently changed the travel advice for dual nationals going to Iran. If we think there are heightened risks, we will say so. We are aware that some of the individuals who have been talked about in the press may have visited the United Kingdom when the Crown Prince came for his official visit, and we are looking carefully into what activities they undertook.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
May I endorse the words of the Foreign Secretary in his statement and urge him to put pressure on the Saudis, first to make sure that the body of Jamal Khashoggi is found promptly and that the man is laid to rest, and secondly so that our Saudi colleagues know fine well that under no circumstances can this behaviour be tolerated? Freedom of the press, if it is to mean anything, must be something that the Saudis demonstrate forthwith as part of a meaningful move forward.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on all those points. I would add that part of the reason for the strategic partnership we have with Saudi Arabia is stopping brutality by Daesh and other terrorist organisations, which is why it is of particular concern when there are reports that the Saudi state itself may have been involved in such brutality. That is why we have to get the bottom of this.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Just as it would be perverse for the Kremlin to investigate MH17 or the Salisbury incident, it would be utterly perverse for the House of Saud to have its fingerprints anywhere near this investigation. Although I would like to see the Foreign Secretary introduce an arms embargo, I welcome his announcement about the Trade Secretary not attending the upcoming summit in Saudi Arabia. Will he confirm that it will not just be Ministers who will not be going but that there will not be one official from any Department in London or from any of our embassies around the world?
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
First, let me express my absolute revulsion over this incident. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must avoid grandstanding until we know the full facts of what occurred? Any journalist, including Mr Khashoggi himself, who was such a great campaigner for freedom of speech, would understand that this is essential. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that and does he agree that, as and when necessary, we will use our influence and we will act?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue here is that in this country we support due process, which is what the reports suggest is absolutely what did not happen in the case of Mr Khashoggi. We must be true to our principles; we need to wait until this investigation is complete and then we need to support proper due process for anyone who was responsible for his terrible murder.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Germany has halted arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The Secretary of State prefers to wait. Is he suggesting that there is some way in which Mr Khashoggi could have met his death in the embassy that would be acceptable to him, and will he accept that whatever the result of the investigation, responsibility for the murder must lie with the autocratic ruler of what has now been shown to be a murderous state?
Mr Hunt
I have made it very clear that we need to find out who was ultimately responsible for happened and act accordingly, but on the question about arms sales, I think the hon. Lady is misrepresenting the approach we have in this country, which, as I mentioned earlier, was set up by Robin Cook, a Labour Foreign Secretary. In the past few years, we have suspended or revoked licences for arms sales to Russia, Ukraine, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. In 2015 alone, we refused 331 licences. We have one of the strictest regimes in the world, and we will follow the proper processes that we have in place in the case of Saudi Arabia as well.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The idea that a man walked into the Saudi embassy and did not walk out while his wife was outside is simply appalling, and the accounts we have heard lack credibility. I have said in this place before that I was glad to see what seemed to be progress on women’s rights and opportunities in Saudi, but this is not the sort of behaviour that we can accept from an ally. May I support my right hon. Friend’s demand for a robust account of what happened and his plan to take robust action?
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
This hideous crime took place in a Saudi embassy on Turkish soil. They are two countries known for imprisoning journalists regularly with impunity. The Foreign Secretary and his Government have so far refused even to countenance the suspension of arms sales to either Saudi Arabia or, indeed, any country like Turkey. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he prioritises human rights or arms sales?
Mr Hunt
I think that the hon. Gentleman is creating a totally false dichotomy. We have a proper, established, robust and thorough regime that is designed to make sure that we do not sell arms to countries where there is a clear risk of breaches of international humanitarian law. That applies to countries such as Saudi Arabia as well as lots of countries to which we could sell arms but to which we do not, because that clear risk exists. At the same time, when we look at the representations made by British ambassadors and British Ministers all over the world and at the fact we have the third largest development budget in the world, I think that it is hard to find a country that does more on human rights, but the point is that we have to do both.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I was lucky enough to meet the Turkish Foreign Minister some 10 days ago as details were emerging of this horrific event, and he was visibly and viscerally upset by what he was being told, of which we of course do not yet know the full facts. I welcome the measured tones of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but does he have any timescale in mind for the investigation that will take place in Turkey, and has he offered full assistance to the Turks?
Mr Hunt
I, too, had a long conversation with Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu, and I echo what my hon. Friend has said; I think he was deeply personally shocked by the story. I do not think that the investigation will take a long time to conclude. All the suggestions are that it might even conclude in a matter of days. That is very important, because we need to start proper accountability through the judicial system for the people who were responsible for this terrible crime.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
UNESCO reports that nine out of 10 killings of journalists go unpunished. The Foreign Secretary’s commitment to hold Saudi to account is undermined by his Government’s choosing expediency over honour and sending UK officials, diplomats, to Riyadh this week. Will he give credibility to his commitment to justice and support the call by the International Federation of Journalists for a UN convention on the safety of journalists and media professionals?
Mr Hunt
I completely reject the hon. Lady’s suggestion that we are choosing expediency. As I said in answer to the last question, I do not think any country does more than we do to champion human rights in every corner of the globe. We do that sometimes at commercial cost and often at diplomatic cost, but we do it differently in different countries. With countries such as China, if we were to raise such issues publicly, we would just lose access to the people who can make a difference. There are other countries where we raise such issues more publicly. The question is whether we raise them, and we do. The idea of a UN convention could be very interesting, and I will certainly look at it.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments about the fear that is felt by journalists around the world. In the Council of Europe, the platform to promote the protection of journalism and the safety of journalists identifies 126 journalists who are detained across member states of the Council of Europe. The committee of Ministers stresses that the law should provide for aggravated penalties to be applicable to public officials who act in a way that prevents or obstructs investigations. The Secretary of State has spoken about the rules-based order. Is it not the case that we can do far more with friends and closer friends? Is it not our duty to do so, and to do so loudly, so that others hear us say that journalists and freedom of speech must be protected?
Mr Hunt
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am very concerned about that growing trend. Of particular concern to me is the increasing sense among autocratic regimes that they can take this kind of action with impunity. This is not something on which Britain can act alone, so we need to build an international consensus with our democratic friends across the world. We need to say that such actions are unacceptable not just in our countries but anywhere in the world, and we need to use every bit of influence we have to enact that.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I listened to the Foreign Secretary’s statement with care. Could he explain further to the House how collaboration with France and Germany has worked in this instance? It shows that despite the fact that we are going through quite tortuous negotiations to do with leaving the European Union, on issues of common cause, such as the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, we can find friendship and close collaboration with our European friends and partners.
Mr Hunt
That is an important question, which is, in a way, linked to the previous statement we had from the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that such incidents remind us and our EU friends of the importance of our ongoing diplomatic partnership and friendship with Europeans. In such an instance of human rights violations, it is easy for the country responsible to start picking off people who say things that it does not like. That is why standing side by side with others—not just Germany and France but, I am sure, in this case, the United States—is a very important tool to have in one’s diplomatic armoury.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The integrity of the rules-based international system relies on red lines and on consequences for breaching those red lines. What has happened to Jamal Khashoggi should be a red line, but so should the bombing of a bus full of children in Yemen, and so should the detention of the Lebanese Prime Minister.
If, as appears to be the case today, the Foreign Secretary is not yet willing to put forward a UN resolution, as the shadow Foreign Secretary has suggested; if he is not willing to call for an independent investigation, as the shadow Foreign Secretary has suggested; and if he is not willing to put in place the immediate suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, as the shadow Foreign Secretary has suggested, will he at the very least make sure that not a single Minister or a single official goes to that conference, which has been dubbed “Davos in the desert”? If the Foreign Secretary sends British officials to the conference in such circumstances, all the words that we have heard today—Labour Members welcome them—will ring hollow, and he will send a message to every tyranny in the world that they can do what they like, because there will be no consequences from the democracies of this world.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is somewhat misrepresenting the Government’s position. In answer to an earlier question, I said that it was highly unlikely that any British official would be attending, and we are reviewing the position at the moment. We have already said that the Trade Secretary will not be going. If we are to have red lines, they have to be credible and they have to be based on evidence. We cannot make decisions when an investigation has not yet been completed. That is against due process, and it would not be the right thing to do. We have to allow the investigation to happen and the full facts to emerge before we take our decision.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the joint statement between ourselves, France and Germany, showing a united front on what could be an appalling crime. What further steps is the Foreign Secretary planning to take in the international community to ensure that we get the answers we need?
Mr Hunt
First, we have made it clear in our regular contact with the Saudi authorities that there has to be a proper independent investigation and a credible explanation from Saudi Arabia of what happened, and we do not believe that we have had that to date. Secondly, when the facts emerge and when they have been confirmed, we will make a judgment with our allies about the appropriate thing to do. We have had lots of suggestions today of things that we could do, and we will make a considered response. I think that we have been very clear that that response will be commensurate with the scale of what has happened.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
CNN is reporting today, based on CCTV obtained from Turkish security, that a member of the assassination squad walked around Istanbul in Jamal Khashoggi’s clothes after he was killed, in an attempt to show that he left the consulate alive. That shows a level of co-ordination that must have come from the top, and I do not know how much more evidence the Foreign Secretary needs to be persuaded of that. When he is persuaded, will one of the steps that he considers be to suspend diplomatic relations with what is increasingly seen as a bandit regime?
Mr Hunt
If the hon. Gentleman were in my shoes, he would not be announcing the actions that the United Kingdom would be taking until the proper investigation had been completed. I read the same media reports as the hon. Gentleman does, and when I see the stories of a body double of Khashoggi walking around the streets of Istanbul even though his fiancée waited outside the consulate for 11 hours for him to come out, it suggests to me that the story we are getting from Saudi Arabia is not yet credible. If we are to continue this strategic partnership, we need a credible explanation for what happened and we need to see the results of that investigation. I could not have been clearer: we will take serious action if these stories turn out to be true.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
We need to encourage liberal internal reforms in Saudi Arabia, and we need Saudi Arabia as a bulwark against the spread of Iranian-backed terrorist proxies across the middle east, but how can we persuade an absolute monarchy that political assassination is not a legitimate tool of government?
Mr Hunt
That is a very thoughtful question, and I think the answer is that all absolute monarchs feel somewhat insecure about their position. The way to increase their sense of security is to go down the path of reform, because that is what creates social stability, which in the end makes countries and their populations more stable. That is what we need to encourage.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As has been alluded to, this is not the first time that critics of the Crown Prince have been attacked. In September, a Saudi human rights activist who sought refuge in the UK—in London—was attacked in Knightsbridge, allegedly by Saudi forces, after his location was revealed on social media. In such circumstances, what is the Secretary of State doing to protect citizens and defend freedom of speech in the United Kingdom, which is particularly critical of Saudi Arabia?
Mr Hunt
We have some of the toughest laws in the world to defend freedom of speech in this country. We will always do what it takes to defend that, and the independence of our press is the most powerful weapon we have in that respect. We are looking at all these issues and I want to reassure the hon. Lady that, when it comes to media freedom, we recognise that there is a pattern of wrongdoing here, and we are very concerned about it.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
First they said that Jamal Khashoggi had left the consulate alive. Then they said that he had died in a fight. While of course it is right to listen to the third explanation from the Saudi authorities, does my right hon. Friend agree that the credibility of those explanations has been seriously undermined by their decision to publish what is manifestly implausible?
Mr Hunt
I absolutely agree. Until we get to a place where the Saudi authorities are giving an explanation that they can corroborate and that is consistent with the evidence from other sources, people will continue to ask the questions that my hon. Friend is asking, and we will continue to not feel that we can have confidence that the Saudi authorities understand the gravity of what has happened and will truly make sure that it never happens again.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Many of us recognise the important strategic and economic relationship that we have with Saudi Arabia but simultaneously believe that its actions in recent months have simply put them beyond the pale. While of course we will allow the Turks to investigate what happened on their land, will the Foreign Secretary say that there is no credibility whatsoever to the suggestion that a 15-man hit squad came from Saudi Arabia and took part in the things that we have heard about but had no links back to Mohammed bin Salman?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is making the point that many hon. Members have made, which is that the explanations we have had from Saudi Arabia about what happened lack credibility. It is vital that this changes. The world needs to know what is happening, and if the world is to have confidence that Saudi Arabia is reforming and that these kinds of things will never happen again, we need to see a different approach.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I declare an interest, as per the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: from March 2016 to January 2018, I advised the King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies, an independent think-tank and non-governmental organisation.
All those involved in the callous, brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi have to be held accountable at every level. One way to do that would be for the United Kingdom to call for an independent investigation at the United Nations, as was done following the murder of Rafic Hariri, the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, and in the case of Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, with whom I worked for eight years before coming to this place.
What we have seen from the Government of Saudi Arabia is pathetic, inconsistent explanation after explanation. The Foreign Secretary talks about consequences, and I urge him to ensure that the consequences are firm and decisive at every level, otherwise we get into the concept of “might is right”, which leads to anarchy and chaos. I welcome his statement.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that his own Department has criticised Turkish authorities in the past, based on their human rights record. Can he tell us a bit more about what discussions are taking place between his Department and the Turkish authorities on this investigation? Will he commit to meet the International Federation of Journalists, as others have suggested, to talk about a United Nations convention on protecting journalists? It is unacceptable that one in 10 killings of journalists ends up with a prosecution.
Mr Hunt
We have had extensive discussions with the Turkish authorities about their investigation, and we are encouraged that they think it will only be a matter of a few days before the full results are announced. I would be happy to meet the International Federation of Journalists.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary is correct to say that the full facts of this barbaric murder have not emerged yet, but key facts have emerged. It seems utterly implausible that the top forensic pathologist from Saudi Arabia is dispatched, equipped with a bone saw, when this is something to do with a fist fight. I was also shocked to learn that that named individual who visited the consulate in Istanbul was a graduate of Glasgow University, which raises questions about the unhealthy relationship between higher education institutions in this country and Saudi Arabia. Will the Foreign Secretary consider calling on Glasgow University to strip this barbarian of his degree in the first instance?
Mr Hunt
I am sure that the university will consider doing exactly that if he is found responsible for the crimes that are being alleged, but obviously that would be a matter for the university. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point; he is saying what many hon. Members have said, which is that the accounts we have heard from Saudi Arabia as to why this happened do not seem to match the facts on the ground.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State correct the record? I think he misspoke earlier when he said that the coalition Government had strengthened arms controls. The Committees on Arms Export Controls said in 2014 that there was a “substantive weakening” of the controls, and the Government themselves said that there was no material change.
The Foreign Secretary referred in his statement to the judicial review of arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The review said that the CAEC conducted the independent scrutiny, but the Secretary of State for International Trade refused to attend CAEC hearings last year. Will he attend CAEC hearings this year? The Foreign Secretary himself has said that the Saudi investigation into this murder is not credible, so why do the Saudis investigate their own war crimes in Yemen? Will the Foreign Secretary now demand a UN investigation into this rogue state? Will he also acknowledge that security information from this state is rarely useful, as a senior civil servant said today on the radio, and that we should suspend co-operation in that area?
Mr Hunt
It is for the Home Office to make its assessment of the usefulness of the counter-terrorism intelligence-sharing relationship that we have with Saudi Arabia. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the information I have had is that it is important. With respect to his other comments, I was telling the House what I have been informed of in my briefing notes by the Foreign Office, but I am happy to write to him to explain why I said what I said.
Points of Order
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I gave notice of this point of order to the Speaker’s Office this afternoon. It is about the Government’s widespread briefing in today’s papers about their taking new powers and initiatives on grade inflation in universities and whether the Minister for Universities will use the teaching excellence framework to facilitate that without having brought this matter to the House.
Amendment 23C to the Higher Education and Research Bill required the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the TEF within a year of the Act’s commencement, requiring that the review and subsequent review must cover all aspects of the TEF and whether it is fit for purpose. The Government gave me a commitment in writing that they would announce the review by autumn 2018. Despite that, they have failed to bring anything forward on the independent review, yet today they have been briefing the press on their plans to use the TEF for this new purpose, even though they have not even announced its review. In the light of that, is it right for the Department for Education to push out policy changes on the hoof to the media, without coming to the House to give a proper statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As ever, he knows, and the House knows, that that is not a matter on which the Chair can rule or take immediate action, but I can well understand from his description of what has happened why he wants to bring the matter to the attention of the House, and by raising this point of order, he has very effectively done so. I hope that the relevant Minister will note what he has said, but if he does not get the response that he hopes to get in the proper way, I am sure that he will raise this matter again with the Chair through one of the orderly ways in which such matters can be raised.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to raise yet another point of order on the ongoing clinical waste fiasco, especially as Mr Speaker has very generously granted me two urgent questions about it in recent weeks. However, it seems that every time the Minister for Health comes to the House, his statement unravels within days. Last week, he was specifically asked whether it was true that unqualified drivers were driving hazardous waste from Yorkshire to Slough. He did not answer and he said he was not aware of what was happening in Slough. Now we learn, yet again from the Health Service Journal, that Department for Transport officials had in fact granted a special licence for this waste to be transported in this particular way, even though it is in breach of the normal safety regulations. Indeed, just last week another licence was granted—this was before the Minister came to the House—to Mitie to allow it to take waste to Slough, and yet another licence was granted to allow it to take waste to Littlehampton in west Sussex.
The Minister did not say any of this in his statement last week, so could you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, of an appropriate way to express my disappointment and get it on the record? Could you also let me know whether you think that Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care are as clueless as those making decisions in the Department for Transport?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. On this second point, no, I could not let him know whether I think that Ministers are useless or perfect in the way in which they undertake their duties. That is a straight answer from me: no, I could not let him know that.
On the hon. Gentleman’s very important point, he will know, as the House knows, that of course the Chair is not responsible in any way for what a Minister says at the Dispatch Box; that is up to the Minister. I assume that the Minister has said what he has said in good faith, but the hon. Gentleman has an argument with that. He has asked me how he can put his concerns on the record, and again I will give him a straight answer: he has just done so most effectively. I am sure he will get a response from the Minister, and if not, I am sure he will be able to use one of the proper forms of bringing a question of an urgent nature to this House.
We now come to the presentation of a Bill by Mr Frank Field. The notice of presentation has been withdrawn.
Offensive Weapons Bill
Bill to be considered tomorrow.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 8 to 12 together.
Ordered,
Administration Committee
That Patrick Grady be discharged from the Administration Committee and Marion Fellows be added.
Education Committee
That Michelle Donelan be discharged from the Education Committee and Mr Ben Bradley be added.
Public Accounts Committee
That Bim Afolami and Luke Graham be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Nigel Mills and Chris Davies be added.
Scottish Affairs Committee
That Paul Masterton be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Kirstene Hair be added.
Welsh Affairs Committee
That Glyn Davies be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Guto Bebb be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Paediatric Cancers of the Central Nervous System
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to have been granted this important Adjournment debate. In all honesty, I wish I was not having to take part in it, but on 29 January, Cian Case, a six-year-old little boy from Llanharan in my constituency, tragically died after suffering a relapse of an aggressive cancer of his central nervous system. Cian was a young, gentle and happy young boy whose life was lost too early—far too early. It was a privilege to meet Cian at a fundraising rugby match in March 2016. I will never forget his warmth and acute sense of humour about his condition, or indeed the look of joy on his face at the fact that the community had come out in their hundreds to support him.
Cancer is a foe that every single Member will have experience of. Whether it be a sibling, a parent, an aunt, an uncle, a friend or even somebody we have just got to know in passing, Members across this House, as well as the people we serve, will have had cancer touch their lives and will know of its life-shattering effects. There is no good time for anybody to get cancer, but as I am sure you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is particularly harrowing and particularly life-changing to live through your child’s suffering with, and eventually dying from, this terrible disease.
It may come as a surprise to many Members across the House that, on this occasion, I do not stand here to point the finger of blame at the Government or to take a swipe at the NHS in England, or indeed in Wales. Instead, I seek to tell Cian’s story in the hope that we can work together, on a cross-party and cross-Government basis, to help to ensure that no family has to go through what Cian Case’s family underwent.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and on speaking so movingly about his young constituent. Having experienced having a seriously ill child, I know that one vital thing in such a situation is the care that hospitals provide not just for the child, but for the parents and the carers who spend a great deal of time there. Does he agree that there should also be a focus on that as we move forward on this crucial issue?
Chris Elmore
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to him for the bravery that he and his wife, Rebecca, have shown over William. I am so pleased to see pictures of him now looking so well and on the road to recovery.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward such an important issue as an Adjournment debate. We have some three hours to complete the debate, so he has tons of time. About 400 children are diagnosed with a central nervous system tumour in the UK each year, accounting for a quarter of all childhood cancer cases. Like the hon. Gentleman, I salute the doctors, nurses and carers for all the work that they do in looking after these children. Survival rates for other cancers have significantly increased in the past 50 years, but the same cannot be said for brain tumours. Many charities and research groups are working in collaboration to find a cure. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to raise awareness, find a cure and ensure that parents are fully aware of the key signs and symptoms in babies and young children?
Chris Elmore
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I hope my speech will go some way to highlighting that more work is needed, and to paying tribute to parents and families who have lost children through this horrendous condition.
Cian was first diagnosed with an atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumour in 2015, when he was four years old. This type of tumour, often called an AT/RT, is a very rare and rapidly growing tumour of the central nervous system. Cian’s primary tumour was found on his spine, with seeds of the cancer also found in his brain. In the majority of cases, AT/RT is associated with a specific genetic mutation, INI1, which can occur spontaneously or be inherited. However, genetic testing in Cian’s instance did not indicate that he had this specific mutation. Cian’s tumour was located on his spine. AT/RTs are generally located anywhere in the brain, but are most commonly found in the cerebellum—the base of the brain—and in the brain stem, which is the part of the brain that controls basic body functions. The fact that Cian’s tumour bucked this trend made a difficult medical situation even more complex. AT/RT was previously thought to have been a type of medulloblastoma. However, it is now known that this is a totally different type of cancer and cannot therefore be treated via the same methods.
Mercifully, childhood cancer is rare in itself. The majority of children who are sadly subjected to this disease are diagnosed with a form of leukaemia. Brain tumours are much more rare, and AT/RTs make up only between 1% and 2% of these cases. I hope this illustrates just how tragic it was that Cian contracted not just cancer, but a cancer of the rarest of forms. This, however, is exactly why we have to do something. We have to do something to remember Cian and ensure that his legacy is that other families may be prevented from suffering a similar fate.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his wonderful speech and pay tribute to Cian’s family for all they have done on this issue. Will he join me in paying tribute also to Cancer Research UK, which in the past 12 months has tripled its funding for brain cancer research, understanding that it has been under-researched up to now? Should we not be encouraging the Government and working with them to do all they can to ensure that research into these key cancers continues?
Chris Elmore
I agree entirely. I am sure the Minister will set out the extra work the Government here and the Administrations in Scotland, Cardiff and Belfast are doing.
The very fact that these cancers are rare often makes it difficult to get a research cohort together, but we cannot allow that to be a barrier to finding new treatments and even cures for such illnesses. The treatments currently available for childhood cancers in the brain or spine tumours range from neurosurgery to radiotherapy, chemotherapy and steroids, and finally proton beam therapy. The course of treatment is tailored to the individual case, with patients typically undergoing multiple treatments. Sadly, AT/RT patients do not typically have good survival rates, and outcomes are poorer if a child has signs of tumour spread at diagnosis. We cannot accurately predict the outcome for any individual child who has developed such a tumour, but children diagnosed who are less than 12 months old are less likely to be able to fight the disease.
It will come as no surprise to hon. Members when I say that the key to fighting this disease in the long term lies in medical research. There are many competing priorities in medical research, with many historic frontiers yet to be conquered, but we must ensure that all forms of illness that cause pain and suffering receive the attention and the willingness to tackle them they deserve. I welcome the announcement from the Department of Health and Social Care earlier this year that the UK will invest £20 million in brain tumour research over the next five years. In addition, Cancer Research UK is investing £25 million to support that work. Will the Minister say what percentage of that funding will be used specifically for research into paediatric cancers?
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. This year, I have attended the funerals of two very special and inspirational people. One was well known to us in this place: Dame Tessa Jowell, who led a valiant campaign against brain cancer. I welcome the Government’s response to her efforts. The other was my eight-year-old constituent Kaleigh Lau, who waged an equally valiant fight against diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma—a particularly rare form of brain tumour. May I endorse what my hon. Friend says about the importance of specific funding for childhood brain tumours, including rare conditions such as DIPG? May I also through him urge the Minister to look again at support, especially financial support, for families who travel long distances—in Kaleigh’s case, to Mexico—to access experimental, often successful and life-extending, treatment? That needs to be looked at, so that in future the life expectancy of a child depends not on how much money their parents have or can raise, but on whether our Government are prepared to ensure that all children have access to potentially life-extending treatment.
Chris Elmore
I agree, and I will touch on the impact on families later in my speech. People talk of the late Baroness Jowell—Tessa—and her legacy. There can be no greater legacy than securing the additional research funding through her campaign on tackling the causes of brain tumours. Of her many great achievements, that has to be the one that will live with all of us the longest.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware of CLIC Sargent’s campaign. In an event today, the charity highlighted the cost of travel for families with children who are in treatment. The average is about £200 per month. We need to do a lot more to support families and to cover some of those costs.
Chris Elmore
I agree. Often with children’s cancer, one member of the family—usually the mother—has to give up their job to be a carer. That has a massive impact on the family. I completely agree with my hon. Friend that that has to be addressed.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being generous with his time, debating an important subject that has been raised several times in this House. I rise to pay tribute to two constituents—Alex Logan and Luke Stewart—who lost their lives recently. I have spoken to the Minister and others about treatment abroad, and I urge the Minister and the NHS to look more widely for possible cures and to be—I phrase this carefully—more open-minded about where the answers may lie.
Chris Elmore
I agree with my hon. Friend and endorse his tribute to his two constituents. I will speak later about some of my asks regarding international research, to which I hope the Minister will respond positively.
It is of course vital that we continue to undertake the best research possible into brain tumours in adults, but I must impress upon the Minister that it is essential that we give equal priority to childhood cancers. It is extremely positive to see groundbreaking work being undertaken in Wales, including through the Wales Cancer Research Centre, which is funded by the Welsh Government and led by Cardiff University. In recent years, it has been very positive to see the new drug/radiation combination trials coming to Wales, which could lead to new world-leading treatments being made available in the Welsh NHS. Clinicians and politicians of all political colours agree that this is an uphill struggle, but I know that it is a fight that colleagues in the Welsh Government will face head-on.
I pay tribute to the charities doing such vital work to advance research. I am pleased that the charity Brain Tumour Research is working closely with Cardiff University to fund research into some of the most aggressive forms of brain tumours. I know that Brain Tumour Research and CLIC Sargent have raised concerns about the hidden costs of treatments for the families of patients being treated for such cancers. CLIC Sargent finds that parents of children suffering from cancer spend as much as £600 a month on top of their normal travel expenses. We must work together, across health boundaries, to decrease that cost and provide financial support where possible.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Cian’s parents? As a parent in a similar position, I know how difficult it is for them to talk about their personal loss and to campaign for their son. They should be applauded for their courage in allowing us to discuss this important issue.
Chris Elmore
I thank my hon. Friend for her, as ever, courteous and heartfelt intervention. I know of the trauma she is facing in her family life. Richard and Lorraine are extraordinary people, as are their wider family. I have been impressed by their courage throughout Cian’s illness and, now, his passing.
We must not forget those who are lucky enough to survive such aggressive forms of cancer. Survivors often face a lifetime of other health complications, including mobility issues, cognitive challenges, infertility, growth complications and other conditions that require a high level of medical support. We must ensure that aftercare for those children is world class, and that they are able to lead as full, happy and long a life as possible.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate to raise awareness of an important health condition. He described how the tumour affecting his constituent was in the cerebellum and is now discussing the long-term effects for survivors of childhood brain tumours. Both treatment and recovery are determined to some degree by the location of the tumour, which can vary widely. I remember clearly a young patient who had a tumour so close to her brainstem—the part of the brain that controls breathing, which we do not think consciously about—that she had to live in intensive care for many months during her treatment, because at any point she could stop breathing. I remember sitting with her when she was making a cotton wool collage of a winter scene and she simply stopped breathing. When she was awake, one could say, “Breathe,” and she would make a conscious effort to breathe; if she was asleep or distracted, or no one was paying attention, she would have passed away. She needed that constant reminder. That is why it is important to ensure not only that we have research and medical treatment during illness, but that for recovery there is a multi-disciplinary team—physios, speech therapists, occupational therapists and so on—so that children who survive these awful tumours make the fullest possible recovery and can live the fullest possible lives afterward.
Chris Elmore
I agree with the hon. Lady entirely. There is clearly a need to look not just at treatment but at what comes next. If we are to improve survival rates, which we must—research is a key part of that—then we need to look at what comes next for these families and for the children who, touch wood, will survive.
Chris Elmore
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is such an important part of the recovery that families go through. That a child has cancer is in itself a huge trauma. What comes next is so important, and mental health for both the child and the family cannot be forgotten. This again underlines the life-changing effects of cancers such as AT/RT on a child. It will in all likelihood impact on every aspect of their life.
There is a great deal of positive work happening in this House. I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and her colleagues on the all-party group on children, teenagers and young adults with cancer, who recently held an inquiry into patient experiences of childhood cancers, the findings of which were published this year. After discussing the inquiry with my hon. Friend, I would like to thank the Minister for the positive contribution he made to it. I ask him and the Secretary of State to look at the report’s recommendations. Many are comparatively inexpensive and would make a huge difference to the children and their families who find themselves in this situation. I appeal to the Minister to update the House on his response to the all-party group’s findings.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for the very kind tribute he paid to the all-party group for its inquiry. Many of the panel members are in the House today. I would just like to add my support to what he has just asked of the Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good if the Government could commit to greater education and awareness? Although it is rare, the signs and symptoms of cancer in children need to be picked up early. The earlier they are picked up, the more likely it is that treatment is successful.
Chris Elmore
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I again pay tribute to her and her leadership not just on childhood cancer but on cancer generally. She is a true heroine of the cause and we are extremely grateful to have her in this House. It is clear that there is positive work being undertaken on this issue, but it has to be said that we can do more, much more, to help to tackle this disease.
Members across the House will remember when our dearly missed friend, the late Baroness Jowell, spoke so movingly, just days before Cian passed away last January, about the need to work much harder to make brain tumour research more effective. Tessa stressed the need to support the Eliminate Cancer Initiative to improve the chances of tackling this rare illness internationally. The creation of a clinical trial network around the world, an increase in the use of active trials, and the use of a global database would help to improve research and patient care. As Tessa so rightly said, through sharing knowledge across borders, and thereby at a local level across medical governance structures, we will be best placed to advance our knowledge of the most difficult and rare forms of cancers, including cancers of the central nervous system.
Making that happen will involve further investment in research into specific tumours such as AT/RT, and international collaboration to ensure that we have the best minds and the most innovative technology working on the most difficult of challenges. I believe the UK Government can be doing more to facilitate that. When Ministers visit other countries abroad, more often than not the two principal reasons for the trip are to further international trade or promote international security, both of which are of course vital. However, it is my view that in discussions with our foreign counterparts the issue of international research must rise up the agenda if we are to have any hope of accelerating our efforts in this area.
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. I am reluctant to introduce Brexit to this debate as we spend so much time discussing it, but on that specific point we have to ensure that we maintain research co-operation with other EU member states, not least so that we get the scale of rare cancers. In the week in which my local NHS trust announced it is closing the chemotherapy unit at King George hospital because of a shortage of chemotherapy nurses, may I gently ask the Minister to ensure that we recruit and retain, from both here and across EU member states, the staff we need to provide the high quality of care and treatment our constituents so desperately rely on?
Chris Elmore
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I will move on to the big B and the big C shortly.
Many of the children Cian was in hospital with had previously been sent abroad to participate in medical trials, including proton therapy. Will the Minister please look at what more we can do to collaborate with international drug trials and trials of new therapies to ensure that we have the most up-to-date treatments available here in the UK? Just as cancer affects so many people, so our efforts to counter it must include as many people as possible. This is simply not something that we can tackle alone.
Sadly, while the majority of my remarks have been about the big C, I must, as ever, touch on the big B. As we leave the European Union, it cannot be stressed enough how important it is for us to continue to work with our European partners to fund research, and indeed to undertake research ourselves into rare cancers. It is vital that we continue to play our part in EU research and development projects of genuine international importance. We must also continue to work with the European Association for Cancer Research, because we simply cannot sacrifice the potential new cancer treatments we will uncover in the name of, in my view, a misguided sense of regaining sovereignty. Indeed, the current treatment is agreed at EU level. Having first been established in 2002, the treatment was last fully reviewed in 2009. The drugs being used to treat this type of cancer are old in relative terms, showing what a vital role international governance can and will play in helping to improve outcomes in the future. Overall, the message I want to get across today is clear. So many cancers rightly receive a great deal of attention and research funding. I would argue that, just because rarer cancers, such as the one Cian suffered from, affect fewer people, that does not mean that we should not be as targeted or as innovative in our efforts to fight them.
If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to mention briefly the brilliant and selfless work Cian’s family have been doing to raise awareness of this particular type of cancer, and their work in fighting for new research and treatments for such paediatric cancers. Cian’s father, Richard, is in the Gallery today. I pay tribute to him and Cian’s mum, Lorraine, and his siblings Dillan aged 11 and Bethan aged 9, for their bravery. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] From when Cian was first diagnosed in November 2015, to when he was told in June 2016 that the tumours had gone, through to when he sadly relapsed in November 2017, his family have tirelessly raised awareness. His community have fundraised and, since his passing, they have continued their efforts.
I pay tribute to Cian’s family for all their efforts in the most difficult of circumstances. I would like to thank the whole community of Llanharan, the surrounding villages and far beyond, whose support for Cian has been unwavering. The online funding page set up following Cian’s death raised in excess of £6,000, which is going to help the charities who supported Cian and his family throughout his treatment. I am sure you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this shows what a mark this little boy has made on his local community. Likewise, I am so proud of all the staff, pupils and parents at Llanharan primary school, the school Cian attended, who were so supportive to Cian throughout his journey and who have been there for his parents and friends since. I was privileged to attend the memorial event they held shortly after Cian died. I am always proud to serve my constituents from the many communities across Ogmore, but I have to say that being part of this outpouring of love in the most tragic of circumstances was truly a privilege. I would like to put on record my thanks to Cian’s headteacher, Mrs Price, his class teacher, Mr Arthur, and all his school friends and the wider school community for the support and generosity they have shown Cian and his family. They planted bulbs which will bloom every year in his memory, so that Cian can never be forgotten.
I admit that there is no easy answer to the issues I have raised today. It will not be solved overnight simply by throwing money at it. The sad reality is that while we seek to meet some of the challenges, other families like Cian’s will sadly suffer the same anguish in the future. It is therefore essential that we raise awareness of the symptoms to look out for to ensure that this disease can be caught early, giving those unlucky few the best chance of survival. The National Cancer Institute finds that children who have developed AT/RT may experience the following: headaches, particularly in the morning; nausea or vomiting; fatigue or lethargy; difficulty with balance and co-ordination; and an increase in the size of their head. Because AT/RT develops so quickly, these symptoms can onset incredibly quickly over a matter of days or weeks. The symptoms can also vary depending on their age and the precise location of the tumour.
It is only right that I highlight the fact that many of these symptoms represent common medical conditions in both children and adults and, in the majority of instances, will not mean that a child has developed a brain tumour. If a parent ever has any doubt in their mind, however, I would always encourage them to seek medical advice. In Cian’s instance, he began experiencing stomach pains that were originally thought to have been abdominal migraines. In reality, it was the pressure of the tumour restricting the spinal cord that transmitted the nerve pain on to his torso.
Cian touched the hearts of all those around him. He was a warm, fun-loving and generous boy. While tragedies like this thankfully do not happen every day, when they do happen, it is only right that we reflect, pay tribute and act to help to ensure that we prevent such instances happening again. Cian was delighted to have met the Speaker during his visit to Parliament and No. 10 Downing Street back in 2016. While I would have liked him to have had the opportunity to return to this House, sadly this will now not be possible. Instead, we must ensure that the House comes together to support those affected by cancer and send a message that our determination to beat it—across all parties—is utterly unwavering.
I thank Members from across the House who have remained in the Chamber to hear Cian’s story and I thank the Minister for taking the time to consider what more we can do about this important issue. The key point I have stressed today is not party political; it is that we must continue to advance our knowledge base across the UK and, most importantly, internationally. By steadfastly supporting the Eliminate Cancer Initiative and redoubling our efforts to find new treatments, and, hopefully one day, a cure for cancers of the central nervous system, we can ensure that Cian’s legacy lives on.
Cian was a young boy with his whole life ahead of him. I appeal to the Minister and every Member: let us help to ensure that more children survive such cancers in his memory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
I, too, wish we were not here, but let me congratulate my friend the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) on securing this evening’s debate. I commend him on his support and the incredible tribute he gave to Cian and Cian’s family this evening, and on the way he has handled the debate. For those who know him, in both the Government and the Opposition, it is rather typical of the man.
From what we have heard this evening, it is clear that Cian was a very special little boy who touched many people in his short life. I have seen his “Cian’s Kicking Cancer” campaign online, including the picture of him with his hands out in front of the No. 10 Downing Street door—it is a lovely photo—and I pay tribute to the determination of Cian’s parents to raise awareness of paediatric cancers. The way that they have been supported by their local MP is brilliant.
As the cancer Minister, I all too often hear of the devastation that this terrible disease can bring to people and their families, but nothing is as heartbreaking as when a child is affected. I said last week in the breast cancer debate that a life lived long or a life lived short is still a life lived, and I passionately believe that a life lived, short or long, still leaves an indelible mark on this world and still changes this world forever, even in a small way. From what the hon. Gentleman has told the House this evening, there is no question but that Cian has left his mark and changed the world a little bit. We will do our best to honour that and see whether we can change it a bit more.
Every day, at least 12 children and young people are told that they have cancer. When they are born—I have children myself—we all imagine bright futures for our children and the things that we want them to do, but cancer robs many children of that future and the opportunity to fulfil their potential. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is relatively rare in young children, but that is absolutely no consolation to the parents of a child with cancer. It can even be worse to know that and inevitably leads to questions such as, “Why me? Why my child? They haven’t made any lifestyle choices.” Cancer is indiscriminately cruel, and that is one of those awful truths that we face in life.
It is great that we have so much time for this debate. I know that there has been a bit of knockabout that the business finished early again this evening, but I genuinely believe that there is a reason why that happened, and we are going to make the most of it. I start by reassuring the House and those watching that cancer absolutely is a priority for me—I think most people know that—and for this Government.
I happened to be in the Tea Room before coming into this debate and the Prime Minister popped in after her marathon stint on her statement this afternoon. She asked me what I was working on and I said that I was doing this debate tonight. We spoke about how remarkable the way in which the House comes together in these debates is and how there is a concentrated audience for such debates. I know that the hon. Gentleman has put out on social media networks, as I am sure many others have, the fact that this debate is happening tonight, and I know, many people will be watching, so let us be clear: fighting cancer is absolutely central, as the Prime Minister said in her conference speech, to our long-term plan for the national health service in England—I have to say “in England”, because I am an English Health Minister, and the English cancer Minister. It will build on the progress already achieved in the cancer strategy and will set out how we will achieve our ambition that some 55,000 more people in England will survive cancer for five years each year from 2028.
I am absolutely committed to ensuring that our plan transforms outcomes for children with cancer over the next 10 years. The fantastic work being done by NHS cancer doctors and nurses, as well as the invaluable support that we get from our incredible cancer community, is helping us to achieve our vision of transforming cancer services for children and young people.
As I have said, childhood cancers are mercifully rare, but 1,600 children under 15 are still diagnosed each year in the UK. Central nervous system cancers are estimated to account for 25%, with 400 children diagnosed each year. Brain cancers alone account for more than 100 CNS cancers, making each cancer extremely rare.
It is true that survival for children’s cancer has gone up over the past decade, with five-year survival for children’s CNS cancers at 75%—that is how we measure it, but, of course, if people develop a cancer in their 70s, a five-year survival rate is a more significant achievement than for those who develop a cancer when they are under five. The survival rates have gone up, but there is not an ounce of complacency in me; we will and must keep working hard to go further and faster.
Treatment of CNS cancers varies depending on several factors—age, the tumour growth rate and the location and size of the tumour—but, as the hon. Gentleman said, it will usually involve a combination of surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, depending on the clinical need. To ensure that patients have access to the latest, most cutting-edge technology wherever they live, we have invested heavily—some £130 million—to modernise NHS radiotherapy equipment. Over the past two years, 73 trusts have had their older linear accelerators, as they are known, upgraded or replaced, and that is an important thing that we have done—[Interruption.] Cheltenham is one of them, says my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk)—who says that PPSs do not speak in the House? He sits there diligently day in, day out, so why not?
The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned proton beam therapy and I want to touch on that. In the past few years, there has been an increase in the use of PBT—for those who do not know, it is an advanced form of radiotherapy—for treating children with CNS tumours. It uses high-energy proton beams to treat the cancer much more precisely. These targeted doses of treatment have less impact on surrounding healthy tissue and fewer side-effects. In childhood cancers, that is critically important—the hon. Gentleman mentioned side-effects of treatment with regard to fertility, for instance.
Until now, PBT for children has been commissioned from overseas. We have sent children to America and to Germany. That is why we have invested £250 million to provide PBT services in England. I am delighted that the first NHS centre, at the Christie in Manchester, is scheduled to begin treating patients this autumn. A second facility is due to open at University College London Hospitals in London in 2020. I had the pleasure of visiting the Christie shortly after delivery of the giant ProBeam proton system, which is a significant engineering feat. The scale and complexity of the technology is truly breath-taking, and I am tremendously excited that we will shortly be providing PBT on the NHS in England, sparing patients the upheaval, discomfort and cost—I will come on to that—of travelling abroad for treatment.
Although survival rates for CNS cancers have been improving, some children will unfortunately suffer relapse, as we heard in Cian’s case, and treatment options can sadly be limited, even for palliative care. That is why NHS England is reviewing whether additional radiotherapy treatments, such as stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic radiotherapy—there is a difference—would be suitable for these patients. I am following that work closely, as I am interested in and excited by its potential.
This month, NHS England published the draft national genomic test directory for cancer, setting out how whole-genome sequencing for paediatric brain tumours and other genetic tests are now being considered for CNS cancers. I hope that introducing those tests will support better tumour identification and more targeted treatments for CNS cancers in children, and give hope to many others.
Perhaps the most exciting development in our efforts to treat childhood cancers successfully is the increasing availability of personalised treatments such as CAR-T therapy, about which there is understandably a lot of excitement in the medical community. With the introduction of more personalised and targeted treatments and different treatment options for children with CNS cancers, NHS England is reviewing how best to ensure that children receive the available treatment and from the relevant clinical team, now and in the future. We expect the availability of more personalised treatments to be a real game-changer for childhood cancers. The work is still in its early stages, and it will involve clinicians, service providers and charities as it progresses, but I will of course update the all-party group, which I will come to in a moment, as it develops.
Research, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is a crucial part of the fight against brain tumours. In May, we announced £40 million over five years for brain tumour research through the National Institute for Health Research, as part of the late Tessa Jowell’s brain cancer mission, which includes research for children with brain cancer. I only met Baroness Jowell once, unfortunately, but I was left in no doubt about what she wanted me to do—her legendary determination was very much in evidence. I very much enjoyed meeting her and Jess, her daughter, who is carrying on much of the work.
The hon. Gentleman talked about research projects. Baroness Jowell’s mission is about stimulating quality research projects—a point that the late baroness was able to nail as soon as she started to look into it. Although the NIHR spent £137 million on cancer research in 2016-17—the largest ever investment in a disease area—it does not allocate funding for specific disease areas. It does not have a basket for each disease area. Spending has to be driven, therefore, by scientific potential and the number and scale of quality funding applications.
The baroness was very pithy and understood immediately that we needed to stimulate the market in brain tumour research to enable quality research proposals to come forward. After that, the clinical research network, which is recruiting for or setting up more than 700 cancer trials and studies, including studies into childhood cancers and brain tumours, can press forward and do its work. Funding for paediatric cancer research is critical.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about international research. I absolutely agree that international collaboration is key for successful research on rare diseases such as CNS and childhood cancers. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we want to work closely with Europe in science and research and that the UK is committed to establishing a far-reaching science and innovation pact with the EU, facilitating the exchange of ideas and researchers and enabling the UK to continue to participate in key programmes alongside our EU partners. Whatever “take back control” meant—one day I will be told—it did not mean that we are not to work with our EU partners in such areas. I am determined that it will not mean that, as are the Government. The Chancellor has also made it clear that he will guarantee EU structural and investment funding and underwrite payments for competitive EU research awards through the Horizon 2020 underwrite guarantee, which is a very important project.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Eliminate Cancer Initiative, which the late Baroness Jowell made sure I was acutely aware of. Its tagline “Making cancer non-lethal for the next generation” is really neat, and we certainly support it. It has huge global potential and reach. As he mentioned, given my international health brief, I travel to talk to Ministers from around the world. I was at the G20 earlier this month. The G20 and G7 have Health Minister meetings, as they should do; I certainly hope they will when we have the chair. I would like to see international research collaboration, specifically on cancer, on one of the G20 or G7 agendas. The hon. Gentleman’s point was well made. I will take it up with my officials so that, as we lobby for the chair of the next meetings, we talk about that. It would be an interesting piece of work that we as fellow Ministers could do. I know that people think that sometimes these international meetings are talking shops, and of course there is an element of that, but actually an awful lot of good stuff goes on and an awful lot of other agencies—the OECD, the World Bank, the EU—are part of those meetings. If Ministers decide that this is part of our agenda, that will make a difference and move the dial.
Several Members have talked about awareness of childhood cancers and I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the all-party group on children, teenagers, and young adults with cancer. I am pleased to see my friend the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) in her place. I welcome the establishment of that all-party group on the specific needs of children and young people with cancer. It is an excellent all-party group—several of its members are or were here. I was delighted to give evidence to its patient experience inquiry earlier this year. She had some of her patient advocates there, who asked great questions as well, and I commend it for an excellent report. I do not have to do this for all-party groups—I do for Select Committees—but I have undertaken that the Department will respond line by line to its report. I will definitely do that. It is not ready yet, but it will happen.
One of the all-party group’s recommendations was on signs and symptoms, which I will come on to, and another was on the cost of travel. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned the CLIC Sargent report that highlighted the financial impact of travel on the families of young cancer patients. It is a really good piece of work. I assure hon. Members that the Government are working to review the service specifications for children and young people with cancer. This will help us to consider how some aspects of the patients pathway might be provided more locally to reduce the travel burden for patients and their families. There is the other element: sometimes that cannot be done and people have to travel for treatment. The NHS cannot do everything brilliantly everywhere—clearly, specialisms are sometimes needed. That is why we have the healthcare travel costs scheme, which is part of the NHS low income scheme. It allows for patients’ travel costs to be reimbursed if they are in receipt of a qualifying benefit or are on a low income. The scheme helped some 337,000 applicants to receive financial help with their NHS treatment. I am very interested in the recommendations of the all-party group on that and I assure its members that I am taking great note of them.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I am pleased to learn that my hon. Friend takes such an interest in reports from all-party parliamentary groups. Will he undertake to look equally carefully at the report that will be produced tomorrow by the all-party parliamentary group for children who need palliative care, known as Together for Short Lives, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell)? It looks at how we provide palliative care for children with cancer and other life-limiting and life-threatening conditions.
Steve Brine
I will now take an intervention from the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting).
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful response to the debate. Will he and the Department look carefully at the issue of access to experimental treatment and financial support, and also the issue of control? One of the conversations that I had with Tessa was about how she had to wrest back control over her own choice in relation to risk and access to experimental treatment.
It would be hard enough for adults to make such choices for themselves, but parents are having to make those difficult choices, too. Some parents feel that they are making the best decisions for their children in turning down the opportunity of access to experimental treatment on the basis of an assessment of the risk and the impact on the life that they have left, while others choose to access such treatment in the interests of their children. While there are challenges in respect of the governance and, perhaps, some of the ethics of those arrangements, we must put a bit more trust and faith in parents. When they choose to access experimental treatment, even if the Department will not fund access to the treatment itself, it might be able, reasonably and ethically, to provide more support than it currently provides in respect of the associated costs of, for instance, travel, accommodation and subsistence.
Steve Brine
I will look into that. The late Baroness and I talked about exactly that subject. I do not think it is so much about ethics; I think that this must be clinically led. There is a great deal of debate in the clinical cancer community about the toxicity of concurrent treatments. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the costs, and the importance of supporting parents who must make decisions which are hard enough when people are making them for themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) mentioned an all-party parliamentary group of which I was a member before I was a Minister. I take all-party parliamentary groups so seriously because I used to lead loads of them. I spent hours writing reports, and, dare I say, I wish that they were sometimes taken as seriously as I take such reports.
It is in all-party parliamentary groups that a lot of good work goes on in the House. Opposition Members, who are not in government at this time, have a huge role to play in moving the dial. The smart Ministers are the ones who say that they do not know everything. The lines that the civil service gives them are often great, but they are not the be-all and end-all. I see APPGs as a brilliant and rich vein of knowledge for me, and I learn a lot from them. So yes, I will look out for my hon. Friend’s work in Together for Short Lives.
My constituency contains one of the best children’s hospice trusts, Naomi House and Jacksplace. My heart goes out to the child hospice movement and my respect for it is ample, and what Together for Short Lives does to represent that movement is incredible.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
There is also a fabulous children’s hospice in Stoke-on-Trent, the Donna Louise Trust, which goes above and beyond its remit to support not just children with life-limiting conditions, but their families. Most children’s hospices depend almost 100% on charitable giving and fundraising to undertake such work. Should not we, as a society, be considering that, and should not the state have a role in helping to provide the service when it is needed?
Steve Brine
There is a role for the state, but the hospice trust in my constituency told me many times that the last thing it wanted was to be 100% reliant on the state. It does not want to be an arm of the state; it enjoys its charitable status. I remember taking delegations from Naomi House, and from the sector, to meet David Cameron when he was Prime Minister, and I think that we could do a lot better in relation to the specialised commissioning of these services. It is still too confusing and too confused, and still too patchy from clinical commissioning group to clinical commissioning group. We are determined to do better in that regard.
Before I went off on a tangent, I was talking about awareness of childhood cancers, which a number of Members mentioned. We must improve awareness of cancer, full stop. I am very proud of Be Clear on Cancer’s “blood in pee” campaign, which is part of my brief. However, as someone who has young children, I know that the challenge is striking the balance between educating children about the warning signs of cancer and frightening them about a risk that is relatively low at their age. My motto would be that the best must not be the enemy of the good.
A number of Members will know about the work of the Teenage Cancer Trust and CoppaFeel! The hon. Member for Bristol West certainly does, because of the work that she has done in relation to breast cancer. Coppafeel!—I still think that that is the best name for a charity that I have heard since I have been doing this job—is run by Kris Hallenga, a brilliantly brave young lady who has terminal breast cancer. It ran a superb cancer awareness campaign in schools, about which I have talked to secondary schools in my constituency. It is sensitive and evidence-based, and pitched very appropriately.
I recently took both those charities to discuss their campaigns with the Minister for School Standards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb). As the House will know from a statement made by the Secretary of State before the summer recess, the Department for Education will be consulting on its health education guidance until 7 November. I encourage charities, all-party parliamentary groups and parents to put forward their views on how we might go further to educate children about cancer. That is critical if we are serious about prevention, which we are.
Let me end by putting on record my tribute to the NHS doctors, nurses, support staff and charities, and our colleagues in the wider cancer community—Team Cancer, as I call it—who work so tirelessly every day to ensure that our constituents, and thousands of children like Cian, benefit from the support and the expertise that give them a chance of recovery and a full life. They are true heroes. They are the ones who will oversee the potential for huge progress in the next 10 years on the cancer diagnosis, treatment and support that we hope to see.
Chris Elmore
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way again—we are in the unusual position of having lots of time, as he has pointed out. I am not sure whether this is in order, but I want to thank him most sincerely for the open way in which he has spoken and responded to Cian’s story, and for the commitments he has given this evening, which will be welcomed across the House and by Cian’s family, particularly the commitment to respond to the all-party parliamentary group and the international commitment on the G7 and the G20. I am enormously grateful, as I know every cancer sufferer and every family member of a cancer sufferer will be. I pay tribute to him, in a rare moment of affection and thanks in this House, which often resembles a bear pit more than anything else, because he clearly has an enormous commitment to the cause that is cancer.
Steve Brine
That is a very nice thing to say. I thank the hon. Gentleman.
In closing, we think that the NHS long-term plan, with cancer right at its heart and with the new north star ambition on early diagnosis and 75% early stage detection, will turbo-charge all that we have already achieved. We are on track to achieve that through the cancer strategy. Last Thursday, in the Westminster Hall debate on breast cancer, I said that I want to see a future where cancer has no future. Maybe I am naive and ambitious, but I want to reiterate that today, because I think that we could achieve that. If we are ever to achieve that goal, I sincerely hope that we can begin by first eradicating all childhood cancers, because many people are relying on us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I commend the Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and everyone who has taken part in the debate for showing what this House of Commons can do when it treats a sad but important subject in a serious, hopeful and positive way. Too many people see us as just arguing for the sake of it, so I hope that some will notice that progress can be made in this Chamber.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Department For Transport (Fees) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Department for Transport (Fees) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. These draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They form part of the work being done to adjust our existing legislative framework in readiness for leaving the European Union next year. If approved, they will make minor and technical amendments to three Department for Transport fees orders to correct deficiencies that would arise from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The fees orders relate to EU and domestic law.
The regulations are concerned only with amending the EU-related aspects of the orders. That will be done by removing references in the fees orders to the Secretary of State carrying out functions to comply with EU law. In practice, the functions will continue, but under domestic law rather than EU law.
The best outcome for the UK is to leave with a deal. If a deal is reached whereby we get a withdrawal agreement, the implementation date of this instrument could be changed by any subsequent Bill that the Government introduce to implement the withdrawal agreement into UK law. However, it is sensible to prepare for all scenarios, and that is what we are doing.
The functions contained in the fees orders all relate to road vehicles and drivers. The fees orders themselves do not set or amend fees; they set out in secondary legislation the matters that can be taken into account when setting fees for delivery of the functions specified in the orders. Although some of those functions are currently delivered under an EU obligation, that does not mean that Brussels has had any oversight or control over the setting of those fees.
The draft regulations will not themselves affect any stakeholders, because after EU exit the functions they relate to will continue to be delivered, albeit under domestic rather than EU law. The regulations do not alter the current level of fees charged for carrying out those functions. The detail of the delivery of the specified functions and the prescription of the actual fee levels that can be charged for the delivery are set out in other legislation.
It may be a source of comfort to the Committee to know that, before any change can be made to the fee level in other legislation, the Minister must have the Treasury’s agreement, conduct a consultation with organisations representing those affected and consider the impact on stakeholders. They must take account of the impact in deciding whether to proceed. Only after that process has been followed will the SI be laid before Parliament. I assure hon. Members that the making of these amendments will not in any way amend the process for changing statutory fee levels. In other words, this instrument does not make the process any easier.
In conclusion, the Government intend for the functions in the fees orders to continue, and other legislation is being amended to allow for that. We therefore need to update the fees orders for those functions to show that they will now be delivered under domestic law, as opposed to EU law, and to allow us to continue to take account of matters relating to the delivery of those functions. That will also ensure that when the fees are amended in the future, they continue to reflect accurately the cost of their delivery. In effect, the amendments in this instrument will ensure that the fees orders recognise EU exit but otherwise maintain the status quo. They do not extend the Secretary of State’s powers in any way. I therefore hope that the Committee will approve these regulations.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I wish to raise a number of points on which I seek clarity and answers from the Minister.
I note that the function of the regulations, which, as was established in the House of Lords, have not been consulted on, could have an impact on fees once they are set, and thus on hauliers and ultimately on businesses that depend on hauliers. I am concerned that the cost of living may creep up not as a result of a direct rise in fees but as a consequence of the changes to functions and the change of jurisdiction where certain functions are carried out.
The regulations themselves seek to amend three fees orders: the Department for Transport fees orders of 1998, 2003 and 2009. While not altering the fees themselves, the regulations transfer the functions by which fees are set from determination in the EU to determination in the UK or to determination in Great Britain and separately in Northern Ireland, where that is appropriate. If the Government bring about any divergence in the mechanism for determining fees, how will that not impact on the fees themselves? It may be that synergy is sought from day one but that changes are introduced later.
In the light of the fact that the UK will make its own determination in these matters, how will this change the cost of providing staffing, premises, equipment and facilities for carrying out the functions that are now carried out in the UK under British jurisdiction rather than in the UK under EU jurisdiction? Will there be any additional cost in administering the legislation, with or without divergence, by the Department for Transport’s Executive agencies: the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Vehicle Certification Agency? What discussions have taken place with these agencies about the potential financial implications of the changes that the regulations will introduce?
I note that the applicable functions are wide-ranging: driver licensing, vehicle registration, international road haulage permitting, vehicle type approval certification, the approval of tachograph calibration centres, international road passenger transport authorisation, licensing to operate public service vehicles, licensing to operate goods vehicles, and enforcement against UK and non-UK drivers and vehicles that break the law on such matters. If we leave the EU at 11 pm on 29 March 2019, the Government may find that access to information to carry out the functions that are repatriated from the EU to the UK is restricted, and that in order for there to be no divergence, one of the agencies in question has to purchase data. If fees then went up, and there was an impact on the end users, I would have to ask why there had been no consultation on the regulations. There could be creeping cost implications from all sorts of things, including providing additional staff who have the responsibility of monitoring the process involved and of determining the scope on which the fees are based. Someone will have to pay for this. If we multiply that across all functions of Brexit, we will see a heavy rise in the cost of living. Even if fees do not rise, someone will have to pay for this.
If bilateral agreements are struck, charges could be increased as a deterrent mechanism, as Lord Berkeley said—for instance, to dissuade non-UK drivers from coming to the UK. We all know that this would be catastrophic, as the road haulage industry has a serious recruitment crisis at the moment. Clearly that could occur if the Government were to apply their desired border controls, and I hope that this is not the case. Divergence at any time could have cost implications and should have been consulted on. Will the Government simply look to recover costs, or will they see these measures as a possible revenue stream as the economy sinks further and further into crisis after we have left the EU? How will the functions be policed and will that require more resources? Will there be a further border check, and will that be through paper or electronic documentation in this modern age? The Minister knows that I have a particular concern about that.
As we saw from the discussion in the House of Lords, and in the light of the fact that no one has a clue about what is in the withdrawal agreement, there is some uncertainty about why we are discussing the regulations now. A hard Brexit, where we sever all links with the EU, would look very different from a Brexit where there is agreement on continuing our full membership of the customs union and the single market for a period of transition, and it would look very different from everything in between. While the Minister is hedging his bets and we are preparing for being driven off a cliff edge and for crashing out of the EU, it could be that the regulations are redundant from 29 March 2019, or they could require further variance, in which case we could find ourselves debating amendments to the regulations. Baroness Sugg seemed to imply in her response to noble Lords that that could be the case. Does the Minister agree?
Earlier this year we debated the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, which will enable the UK to introduce new permits for non-UK road freight. At the time, the Opposition expressed our desire to remain within the community licences scheme. What progress has the Minister made on that, as it would also have an impact on the regulations? Have discussions commenced on that? If so, how are they progressing? Baroness Sugg has said:
“We hope to agree a mutually beneficial deal with liberalised access”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. GC38.]
However, with just weeks—or perhaps we are now counting in days—until a deal is done, I find the word “hope” quite hopeless. How far away are we from having certainty on those matters? The vague responses by the Minister in the other place are certainly disconcerting.
Finally, paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“The Secretary of State will continue to carry out these functions, albeit under retained domestic law in place of EU obligations, and so will need to continue to set and collect fees and charges to cover their costs.”
If the costs of carrying out those functions are increased as a result of the regulations because additional personnel are required, which is a real possibility, how has the Minister scoped that piece of work? It seems to me that the fear of the Brexit cliff-edge is not recognising and knowing the unknown. What work, if any, has been done on that? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Chair
Before I call any other hon. Members to speak, I must say that, although I did not interrupt the hon. Lady, because I sensed that she was coming towards a conclusion, her remarks went a little wide of the specifics of the order. I hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will not seek to explore wider issues that are possibly being explored in the House at the moment. We will stick very much to the point of the order before us.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the regulations, which appear to be relatively straightforward. On that basis, I am content to support them today.
However, I point out that today’s order will be just one of many statutory instruments related to Brexit that will come before us. That prompts the question of just how much time and effort is being put into such work that could have been used for other things had we not been going through this process.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the two hon. Members for their contributions. I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for York Central on many of the questions that she raised. I take the point eloquently made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk as appropriately rhetorical, in flagging the potential efforts to which officials and Ministers have gone in ensuring that we will be properly protected in the event of EU exit.
I remind the Committee of the extremely modest length of this piece of secondary legislation. There are a very small number of changes, which are, broadly speaking, to remove references to EU obligations and to repose in the Secretary of State some powers that presently lie with the EU. That is in line with the general principle of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which is to relocate within UK law powers that presently operate under EU law.
The hon. Member for York Central asked why there had been no consultation on the order. The reason for that was delicately alluded to by the Chairman when he reminded us of the proceeding’s scope. The regulations do not set fees; they only govern what considerations the Secretary of State can take into account in any setting of fees. As I said, fees themselves cannot be changed, except with a staged process that requires the agreement of the Treasury, a consultation with representative organisations that are affected and a consideration of the impact upon stakeholders. There has been no consultation on the order because it has no such impact. All it does is relocate laws from one jurisdiction to another.
Jesse Norman
If I may, I will just finish what I am saying and then the hon. Lady can make further comments.
If there were any possible changes to fees, they would arise out of substantive Acts, rather than the scope that is demarcated by this purely formal change of location of powers. If that were to occur and there were some possibility that fees would have to go up, we would follow the process described, which would involve a consultation in the way the hon. Lady described. That answers her second question, which related to divergence, and her third question, which related to the cost of providing any functions. One cannot predict whether the functions cost would go up or down, but that is immaterial to these regulations, which bear on the considerations that the Secretary of State is entitled to take into account and were formerly taken into account under EU law.
The hon. Lady asked what discussions have taken place with agencies. Of course, discussions routinely take place between Ministers and agencies on a variety of things. In this case the agencies are aware of this change of law, but it is not—I repeat—a matter of changing the substance of any actual fees. Therefore, those conversations do not need to touch on anything other than the formal change that has been described.
The hon. Lady asked whether this will be used as a revenue stream after withdrawal from the EU. Fees are not used as a revenue stream. The whole point of this is to recover the costs associated with the activities in question. There is no revenue stream, in that sense, to be derived.
The hon. Lady said, “As the economy sinks into crisis.” I am afraid that her flair for rhetoric is getting the better of her. So far the economy is discounting any crisis—it continues to grow robustly and no one is expecting anything on that account. She then referred to a series of other matters that have been amply covered in discussions on the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill, with several points raised in Committee and before the House. I refer her to those discussions.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2018
(6 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2018.
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and I am pleased to open this important debate. The energy company obligation requires energy suppliers in Great Britain to reduce domestic energy bills by installing energy efficiency measures. As Committee members know, partly because many of us have debated this issue, the Government place great importance on supporting low-income families, ensuring that their energy bills are as low as possible. To that end, we continue to provide direct financial support to vulnerable households through the warm home discount and the energy price cap, which has cross-party support and will protect some 11 million energy customers who have been stuck on poor value deals.
Our election manifesto restated our commitment to tackling fuel poverty by increasing the energy efficiency of our homes. In 2015, we also said that we wanted to reform the energy company obligation to provide more help to those who need it most. The order completes that reform and will result in the scheme focusing on low-income, vulnerable and fuel-poor households—rather than on a mixture of poverty alleviation and carbon reduction measures—until March 2022. It also supports the Government’s industrial and clean growth strategies by encouraging energy companies to deliver more innovative measures, supporting manufacturers and installers to develop more cost-effective, consumer-friendly products by providing a better route to market.
ECO has operated since 2013 and has currently installed more than 2.4 million measures in about 1.9 million homes. The scheme is funded through energy bills and we will continue the mandated level of £640 million per annum until 2022, but of course the negotiations could deliver a funding commitment beyond that date. Indeed, the clean growth strategy sets out our commitment to keep that level of funding for domestic energy efficiency until 2028.
The Government consulted broadly on the new scheme’s proposals. We received 239 responses, the majority of which were broadly supportive. We published the response to the consultation and laid the order in July. Should the Committee approve the order, the scheme will begin in November. We are aware of the need to maintain continuity of delivery, so the scheme design includes a number of aspects to enable as smooth a transition as possible.
Changes to the scheme reflect various measures: first, our strategic energy objective; secondly, responses to the consultation; and thirdly, the latest market position. As I have said, the measure attempts to focus the scheme as closely as possible on the alleviation of fuel poverty. It is designed to increase the innovation and flexibility that can be delivered by working with local authority partners, because a reasonable criticism of the scheme is that it has not been sufficiently targeted on those homes that need it.
The other important change is my decision to drop the thresholds at which energy suppliers must have an ECO. The current threshold is 250,000 suppliers. We are keen to have a level playing field in this market, and it is not fair that many suppliers do not have to pick up an ECO. There is evidence that suppliers who otherwise claim to be paragons of virtue are deliberately not growing their customer base because it will take them over the 250,000 threshold, which is completely wrong. It is also important that customers do not suffer a detriment if they switch from an energy supplier that offers an ECO to one that does not. We are therefore dropping the threshold, which was last set in 2013. If the order is passed, from April next year suppliers with 200,000 customer accounts will be obligated to offer the scheme. The threshold will fall to 150,000 from April 2020 and could continue to fall thereafter, reflecting a direction of travel in the retail market that we absolutely want to continue.
We have also expanded the eligibility criteria of the scheme so that households on certain disability benefits, their Ministry of Defence equivalents, and low-income working households in receipt of child benefit are newly eligible for support. That reflects my desire for the scheme to be targeted as much as possible at those who are struggling with low income and fuel poverty, and it increases the number of households eligible for support—from 4.5 million under the affordable warmth part of the previous scheme, to 6.7 million under the new scheme—which strikes the right balance between supporting those households most in need and keeping delivery costs low, thereby protecting bill payers.
As I have said, we have increased the proportion of the scheme that can be delivered under the local authority—the so-called flexible eligibility. I have taken that from 10% to 25% because we believe that local authorities are often well placed to identify those households who need help, including people with health conditions that are exacerbated by cold homes. We estimate that a further 300,000 households will be eligible for well-targeted support through that route.
It is important that we develop new products and provide a route to market as part of the investment we are all making, and suppliers will now be able to deliver up to 10% of their obligation using innovative measures not previously supported under ECO: first, by a demonstration action route, which allows suppliers to provide financial support to new products that have been tested in the lab and may have had limited testing in a live environment but now require wider testing; and, secondly, through innovation score uplifts, which are designed to encourage new products that are at a later stage of development but which have not been delivered under the scheme. Of course, while delivering a broader mix of measures we will continue to maintain safety and installation standards.
On heating equipment, the scheme allows the equivalent of 35,000 broken heating systems to be replaced each year so that low-income households can receive support should their heating system be beyond repair. Although other forms of energy efficiency may have greater long-term benefits, a broken boiler, particularly in cold weather, can be the immediate crisis point for a struggling family. Coal-fuelled heating systems cannot be replaced or repaired under the scheme, but we have listened hard to the sector and are allowing oil systems to be replaced so that poor rural households without a current viable alternative can receive support to heat their homes. In my constituency, where more than 40,000 households are off the gas grid, that measure could be very welcome.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister knows that I have some rural poverty, particularly fuel poverty, in my constituency and a lot of people who are off grid. I notice that there is a 15% rural sub-obligation in the order. Could the Minister expand a little on how that might help communities such as mine?
Claire Perry
That is an important point. We are keen to maintain at least 15% of that obligation to rural householders. My hon. Friend knows very well that although he represents one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, incomes there are lower than average and there is a huge amount of fuel poverty—and, indeed, other forms of poverty—in what would otherwise be picture-perfect rural villages. In fact, evidence from the Committee on Fuel Poverty, with which we have worked closely, suggests that fuel poverty is more prevalent in rural areas than in urban ones, and that is why we were keen to maintain the 15% element of the scheme.
My hon. Friend also knows from his wonderful county that we have fantastic heat pump manufacturers working not too far away him, and we have continued to allow ground source heat pumps to qualify for support under both ECO and the renewable heat incentive. We understand the potential for double dipping. We have limited that for other forms of technology but have made an exception for ground source heat pumps due to their high upfront costs and because they are putting in, through the cost of each individual scheme, long-term and potentially valuable infrastructure, which other forms of technology are not required to do.
To encourage installers to take a broader approach to improving the energy efficiency of homes, inefficient heating systems can be replaced if they are delivered alongside insulation measures. We have retained the solid wall minimum requirement, which is now set at the equivalent of 17,000 solid wall homes per year but, as many of us know from our constituencies, that is not always the appropriate technology. Therefore, we have introduced flexibility, by allowing suppliers to meet the minimum through a combination of other measures, as long as they deliver the same bill savings as solid wall insulation.
The changes we have made to the scheme are really important. They will help to upgrade the homes and reduce the energy bills of more than 1 million households living with low incomes or dealing with vulnerability. They will also pave the way for new measures. They will add further impetus to help to meet our fuel poverty and carbon reduction goals by encouraging more cost-effective and customer-friendly solutions.
If the energy companies are listening, I urge them to take these targeting measures seriously. I am fed up of going home to my constituency every Thursday and finding a card through my door offering me a new oil boiler. I am not living in fuel poverty. There are plenty of measures and plenty of information available to allow those companies to do the job properly and to target those households most in need. With the reforms in the scheme, we should work together to deliver that goal. I commend the order to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. This is not any ordinary order; it is a complete ECO scheme in a box. The entire ECO3 scheme is there—all in one statutory instrument. As far as I understand, when and if the order is passed, the work of implementing ECO3 will be done and it will go ahead.
It is important, therefore, to talk about the entirety of the ECO scheme in the order and to compare it with the ECO schemes that went before it and with the programmes that went before them. We should consider what is at the heart of the order and ask: what are we in the UK doing about the appalling state of our homes and their energy efficiency, and what measures are we taking to bring the energy efficiency of those properties up to a decent standard?
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I am unclear as to whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that the measure is sharply distinguished from the original scheme that he mentioned. I am concerned about the impact on fuel poverty not only in important areas such as Cornwall, but in areas that are often not defined as being in fuel poverty, such as Hertfordshire. What is his view of the comparative benefits of the two?
Dr Whitehead
The essential point about the overall aim of ECO is that it should be concerned with all those issues—with urban and rural fuel poverty and with bringing properties up to a decent level of energy efficiency to ensure that our properties are in a fit and good state with regard to climate change and energy use changes.
The concentration on fuel poverty could solve those wider issues to some extent, providing that the scheme is large enough to enable that to happen. We know that people living in fuel poverty are disproportionately concentrated in properties that have low energy efficiency. In the private rented sector in particular, a large proportion of properties are in bands E, F and G. A large proportion of people living in fuel poverty are in that tenure and in those property efficiency bands. In principle, concentrating on fuel poverty is a good way of targeting the wider issues, as long as enough other things are happening within the scheme. It all depends on the overall status of the scheme.
Several good things have happened between ECO2 and ECO3. I commend the Government’s decision to reduce the obligation threshold for suppliers. A large number of energy supply companies fall just below the current level of 250,000 accounts and are therefore not obliged to undertake any ECO measures. Problems also arise in respect of whether people who switch are eligible for certain schemes. Within a short period, the obligation threshold will be reduced from 250,000 accounts to 150,000, which is a Good Thing, with a capital G and a capital T. I thoroughly support it.
Claire Perry
I am craving support today. Does the hon. Gentleman support another measure, namely that which ensures that switching websites make it clear to people in receipt of discounts, such as the warm home discount, that they might lose them if they switch? We want to provide as much transparency in the system as possible, as well as to tackle supplier inflation. I hope that that is also a Good Thing.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed it is. As the Minister knows, I have been banging on about that problem for quite a while.
Dr Whitehead
I also agree with increasing to 25% the proportion of the obligation that can be met through flexible eligibility. As the Minister mentioned, local authorities often know more than most about the whereabouts and construction of the property stock in their area, so involving them in that way is a very positive move. Does she think that such an arrangement could lead to area-based schemes being headed up by local authorities as part of the obligation? She will be aware that ECO has been criticised because its set-up means that energy companies go out to find individuals and treat their homes but do not capture those next door or down the road who are in the same position. Does she think that flexible eligibility arrangements could lead to a better system of area-based activity?
I am not too impressed with the reduction in solid wall treatments in the ECO scheme; that is not a progressive arrangement as far as ECO3 is concerned. We really have to get stuck in to solid wall insulation across the country. There are 8 million solid wall properties in the UK, and solid walls are one of the property elements least treated for energy efficiency, so reducing the target from 24,000 to 17,000 is a retrograde step.
As I mentioned, I support in principle the idea of increasing the concentration on fuel poverty. However, we have to note, at least in passing, that it is one thing to concentrate a scheme on fuel poverty, but if that happens at the expense of all other aspects of the scheme, which is what has happened on this occasion, I am not sure that we will get the whole picture as far as energy efficiency is concerned.
I give two cheers for placing greater emphasis on fuel poverty, but I am concerned about the overall aspects of ECO, which is where that concentrated effort on fuel poverty sits. The Committee on Fuel Poverty has indicated that even that concentration on fuel poverty will not be sufficient to reach current statutory fuel poverty targets. That is a reflection of the overall size of the scheme and its ambitions within its overall setting.
On that overall setting, we need to be clear on two things. First, as the Minister has said, this measure should be placed in the context of the clean growth strategy’s current ambition in respect of the energy efficiency of existing buildings. It is extremely important to note that some 80% of existing buildings will still be here in 2050, and their energy efficiency may need to be uprated so that they do not need to be treated again before then. We cannot get going with energy efficiency in properties simply by building more energy efficient homes; we need to deal with existing homes.
Indeed, the Government’s clean growth strategy document makes clear their ambitions in that respect, stating:
“To achieve this 2032 pathway, we will need to ensure existing buildings waste even less energy. This pathway could see a further six to nine million properties insulated, especially focusing on those in fuel poverty where we are aiming to have the 2.5 million fuel poor homes in England improved to energy efficiency rating C or better by 2030. More broadly, our aspiration is that as many homes as possible are improved to EPC Band C by 2035, where practical, cost-effective and affordable.”
It is salutary to consider that ambition in the context of what ECO was and what it has become. When it was first introduced in 2013, ECO represented a change from the previous Government’s programmes—namely the carbon emissions reduction target, the community energy saving programme and the Warm Front scheme—which had made a demonstrable difference to the standard assessment procedure ratings of properties. If we look at the SAP ratings in household condition surveys carried out on properties when those schemes were in place, we will see that they improved substantially.
By the time they came to an end, CERT, CESP and Warm Front came to a combined Government, taxpayers’ spend of about £1.6 billion a year. ECO is essentially a market-based scheme and is set against customer bills; it was not described as such, but energy companies basically recovered their obligation through customer bills.
The first ECO that came in reduced that overall ambition to £1.12 billion per annum. That was the only spending on energy efficiency in homes at that particular point in 2013, and that was reduced further when ECO 2 came in, to £0.87 billion per annum. Not surprisingly, that meant that over the period there has been something like a 50% to 60% reduction in overall spend on energy efficiency measures and, as the Association for the Conservation of Energy has pointed out, in the period from the early 2010s up to the present, there has been something like an 80% reduction in energy efficiency measures in homes. ECO has presided over not just a substantial reduction but a crash in energy efficiency measures over that period. ECO3 is coming forward, and the obligation figure—which is in the SI, so it is not an imagined figure—is £0.64 billion. That is a halving of overall energy efficiency measures since ECO was first introduced, and since the further reduction that took place when the schemes put in place by the previous Labour Government came to an end.
If we set that ambition—or, should I say, lack of ambition—against the aspirations in the clean growth plan, we can clearly see that even if ECO3 is extended to 2028, as the Government has said and the Minister mentioned, at the present level, it will fail miserably to get anywhere near those aspirations. Will the Minister explain why she is advocating an ECO programme that will signally fail to get anywhere near those ambitions, and whether she has a host of new schemes in her pocket that could help to meet them. If we go to 2022 with ECO at its present level, even with the changes that have been made, and then agree that ECO will continue at that level to 2028, we will get nowhere near those targets. Not only that, but we will miss our one chance to get properties uprated over the next period in line with what the fourth and fifth carbon budgets tell us about the number of properties that need to be uprated. We will fail to make the contribution to energy efficiency, decreasing fuel use and reducing fuel poverty that will help develop an economy in which energy production is both energy efficient and low in carbon.
I am afraid that the Opposition cannot support the scheme in its present form. We have been developing policies that seek to insulate and uprate the energy efficiency of approximately 4 million homes per Government term, for at least two terms over the next 10 to 12 years. That sort of level is necessary to get anywhere near our carbon budgets—and, by the way, our scheme will not be done on the basis of an obligation. As with previous CERT schemes, it has to be done on the basis of all of us putting money into those schemes, to achieve the public good of energy improvement in properties. I am afraid that the market-based arrangements in the instrument will not get us anywhere near our goal. As I say, it would be good if the Minister were able to comfort me somewhat by saying, “We have a load of stuff that we have not told you about yet, which is going to meet the aspirations we set out so eloquently in the clean growth strategy. ECO3 is going to be part of that.” If that were the case, I might be willing to take a slightly different view of the instrument, but my understanding is that as far as energy efficiency in homes is concerned, this is the only show in town. If that show were a theatre production, it would close after three performances.
I am afraid that the Minister will not have the support of the Opposition this afternoon, although she has my personal support on a number of the changes she has sought to make within the existing ECO envelope on how ECO works. Overall, the scheme is not good enough; it is not good enough now, and it certainly will not be good enough by 2028, which is only four years away from the 2032 target. Really, the Minister has to go away and think through a number of measures that can get us there and come back and tell us what they are, so that we can all sit down together and sort out how we are going to get to the goal we all want to reach on energy efficiency in buildings.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I welcome the proposals outlined by the Minister so far as they go. They are moves in the right direction, but I agree that they do not go far enough. If I may crave your indulgence for a few moments, Mr Walker, the problem with the measures is that they do not compensate for the very high electricity bills that consumers will pay as a result of the favouring of very costly nuclear options, as opposed to much cheaper renewable options. That is not just my view; it is the view of the National Infrastructure Commission, which said that the brakes should be put on nuclear power, particularly since the prices of solar and wind technologies are likely to continue falling and at a much faster rate. Lord Adonis has added his voice to those calls. He called nuclear power stations very expensive and problematic, and said:
“Like Sir John Armitt, my successor as chair, I’ve changed my view in face of the evidence”.
I wish that the Government would change their view on nuclear in the face of the evidence.
We know that advances in grid technology have opened up the prospect of drawing power from multiple sources. Strike prices for nuclear are still significantly more than those for offshore wind. It is important that the Minister considers how the UK Government will fulfil the Public Accounts Committee’s recommendation for a full value for money assessment before signing any new nuclear deals, given the report on Hinkley C.
The Government are proposing to close the export tariff for rooftop solar from March 2019, despite solar being one of the cheapest forms of new power generation. I welcome any measures to try to mitigate fuel poverty, but, fundamentally, to do that in any meaningful way we have to look at the whole nuclear issue, as well as the solar and wind issue and the new technologies coming on stream.
Some 26.5% of Scottish households are in fuel poverty, which is simply unacceptable. That is the kind of thing I wish the Government would think about when they try to make inroads into fuel poverty with the measures we are discussing today, which are welcome, but simply do not go far enough. What does the Minister think of the Scottish Government’s plans to establish a not-for-profit public energy company to tackle fuel poverty while supporting economic development and climate change targets? Would her Government ever countenance considering such a measure and perhaps following suit?
Claire Perry
I thank Members for their interesting set of points. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for some of the measures in the scheme. To answer his question about whether the area-based approach allows us to deal with more than one household at a time, the answer is yes, we are encouraging infill measures for certain installations.
The hon. Gentleman asked about solid walls, which links to some of the other points. As he will know, solid wall insulation is one of the most expensive measures, costing an average of £8,000 a household. Historically, ECO has not been as focused on fuel poverty. Indeed, I have been told that one of the criticisms of ECO was that it was buying LED lightbulbs for rich people, which is not something that Government or bill payers’ money should be in the business of doing. With solid wall insulation, many of the contributions have been topped up with householder contributions. Clearly the households we want to be helping with this scheme will not be able to do that.
That is why the number has been cut, but it is also why we have encouraged installers to think more creatively. Often the benefits from solid wall insulation can be achieved by under-floor insulation, using the amazing Q-Bot robot that the BEIS innovation money has funded, or by better loft insulation or improvements in windows. Rather than just having a one-size-fits-all proposal, the idea is that many other measures can be delivered.
I can tell by the way that Opposition Members are whipped that, regardless of what I say, the hon. Gentleman will press the order to a vote, but let me at least have a try. He will know, because he is a very intelligent man, that the challenge with these schemes is to balance the carbon reduction against the cost and whom it falls on, and the creation of a competitive advantage. The Government should direct funding—whether taxpayers’ money or, as in this case, bill payers’ money—in a way that creates better products by pushing a particular market. The challenge is that, while we have been rolling out ECO, there has been a precipitous decline in the cost of some energy-saving measures. The cost of LED lightbulbs is down 80%. That was nothing to do with ECO; somebody just figured out how to make them much more energy efficient. I imagine that most people in this room have fitted at least one LED lightbulb in their home, not because the Government have suggested that they should get money for doing so, but because it saves them money on their energy bills.
The missing piece in what the hon. Gentleman was saying—he said that this is nowhere near enough, and that we need to spend more just to do the same—is that there have been dramatic price falls for many products, but not for those that this scheme has supported. This scheme, in focusing in on tried-and-tested technologies such as cavity wall insulation, has led to very little innovation. Look at what is happening around the world. Thermal paint, for example, can help with the heating and cooling of a property, but we ain’t doing none of that in this country using ECO money or other forms of money.
We are directing £0.64 billion a year into these measures. We must focus that on innovation to ensure we develop new products. We could support products such as home thermostat systems. I am not allowed to mention brand names, but smart thermostats can make a dramatic improvement in a home’s energy efficiency and can lead to bill savings—we want people to save money, as well as have a warmer home. They have not been supported by the scheme, even though they can save people substantial amounts. The purpose behind the scheme is to do something to drive down the cost of those products so more people can buy them, benefit from the energy efficiency savings and potentially invest their own money in the scheme if they can afford it.
Dr Whitehead
Will the Minister reflect on whether the cost per treatment of the innovations she is talking about has overcome the more than 50% loss in funding for ECO schemes since they were first introduced?
Claire Perry
If the scheme can pivot away from extremely expensive, highly interventionist measures, and deliver many more measures that in aggregate have the same cost, that would be a good outcome. The hon. Gentleman says that the Labour party has all these grand plans, but I see no evidence, as always with the Labour party, about how they will be paid for and who will bear the burden. He and I spent many a happy hour debating the price cap Bill. We know that consumers want warm homes and the eradication of fuel poverty, but do not want to overpay for their electricity or gas. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Labour party’s uncosted plans would inevitably lead to whacked up consumer bills and taxes.
Claire Perry
But no one has ever said how Labour will pay for any of this stuff—including the shadow Chancellor—so it is all ambitious pie in the sky as far as I am concerned. What we need to do is to balance continually the cost of what we are doing, the carbon dioxide reduction and the competitive advantage, because by solving our own problems in the UK we can help to solve the world’s problems.
Unlike the Labour party, I do not have a quiver full of magic arrows and the promise of a unicorn at the end of every garden. What I have is a serious and sober set of policies, based on regulation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already regulated for an improvement of the energy efficiency of the worst-performing private rented homes in the market. Those regulations are in force, and we think they will have a material impact.
We are rolling out the world’s biggest smart meter programme. Why do people get smart meters? Because they want to take control of their energy, and because smart meters help them to reduce their energy consumption. By the end of 2020, every home in the country will be offered a smart meter, or an upgraded smart meter if they already have one, to ensure that there is no interruption of data.
We are investing our own money. Sorry—the Government do not have any money of our own; it is always other people’s money. That is another lesson for the Labour party. We are investing other people’s money in energy efficiency measures in many parts of the housing stock right across the country. I am also told that increasingly large sums of money are coming particularly from pension funds and other private sector investors who want to invest in such things because doing so is good for their investment return.
I want to create markets that invest in the right sorts of technologies and that bring in the greatest amount of capital. The hon. Gentleman knows, although his Front-Bench colleagues do not, that Governments can never take enough in taxes or control enough of the economy to make a difference by themselves. We always have to incentivise others to innovate and to invest. Another quiver in our bow is the £2.5 billion of innovation money that I am putting into the smart energy space over the course of this Parliament—money that is targeted to get costs down, get carbon down, and build a competitive advantage.
I am disappointed that I am unable to persuade the hon. Gentleman to support what I think is a very sensible set of measures, which manage not to overburden consumers, who are paying for them, and manage to take a scheme that has for too long not focused on helping those who are in the worst financial straits or living in fuel poverty, often in rural areas, and will then drive up innovation and the level of local flexibility, which will mean that the scheme is better targeted.
I conclude by addressing the point made by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. We already have many co-operative energy companies running south of the border. There is no barrier to one being set up. If an energy company wants to start up and focus entirely on that issue, that is absolutely fine. She knows that I applaud what is being done by the devolved Administrations, but energy bills and large amounts of energy policy are set and, in many cases, paid for by Westminster taxpayers. It is good to see the innovation, but she should never forget who is actually paying for much of the innovation that we are seeing north of the border.
Patricia Gibson
Does the right hon. Lady think that the very high strike price for power from nuclear energy helps or hinders fuel poverty?
Claire Perry
I find the hon. Lady’s party’s ideological objection to a balanced energy supply to be really worrying. I encourage her, as the party’s expert on this subject, to go away and have a look at the modelling. In no modelling of any energy system that I have seen, and indeed that has been shown to me by even the most ambitious pro-renewables, are base load, peak load and renewables delivered at the same time.
Luckily, across all the countries we care about having an energy system that is secure, balanced, keeps the lights on and does not overburden consumers. Again, it is easy for the hon. Lady to take such ideological positions, because she never has to sit and think about the energy system in the round, but I would encourage her to think very hard about the fact that for households that she represents in her constituency, as for those in mine, what actually matters is keeping the lights on, keeping the costs down and keeping the carbon falling.
I suspect that we may divide on the order, but I commend it to the House.
Question put.
Draft Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Northumberland Combined Authority (Establishment and Functions) Order 2018
(6 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
I beg to move,
That this Committee has considered the draft Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Northumberland Combined Authority (Establishment and Functions) Order 2018.
It is a personal privilege for me to introduce this order, which was laid before this House on 4 September. First, it gives me the opportunity to have it recorded in Hansard that on 18 October at 8.40 am my wife gave birth to my second son, David Foster Radclyffe Berry. The reason why I have cut short my paternity leave is that, in my first week in this job, I gave my personal assurance to Nick Forbes, Norma Redfearn and Peter Jackson that I would do all in my power to see this hugely exciting deal for the boroughs north of the Tyne through to its end. I hope that we can move to the next steps in its implementation as it sails through the parliamentary process in this House and the other House.
In the 2017 Budget we announced that we were “minded to” introduce a deal for the boroughs north of the Tyne. Since then, those boroughs have been involved in negotiating a hugely exciting deal for the area with the Government. It will include £20 million a year of gainshare funding for the next 30 years, control of the adult education budget for those above 19 and the power for the combined authority to acquire and dispose of land. It will allow the Mayor to use compulsory powers and set up a mayoral devolution corporation as the foundation stone of North of Tyne’s housing and regeneration missions. In return for that exciting deal, there will be a directly elected Mayor. Whoever he or she may be—given that we do not have any female Mayors at the moment, it would be exciting if our first female Mayor represented the boroughs north of the Tyne—they will be a sharp, single point of accountability, and will be held to account by the people locally for the decisions they make.
The order implementing this deal is another step in the devolution agenda. On its own, North of Tyne generates almost £17 billion a year of economic output and some 815,000 people live there. It is a coherent economic geography, as defined under the legislation. More exciting still, the deal continues the devolution revolution in England. When the Labour party was in government, it started devolution in Scotland and Wales, and this deal firmly positions the Conservative party as the party of English devolution. I hope that my Conservative colleagues will be proud of that and that we can continue to build on it.
If approved, the draft order will lead to the establishment of a new combined authority for Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Northumberland. It makes provision for a directly elected Mayor, who will be elected by all local government electors for the area. The first mayoral elections will take place on 2 May next year and the initial term will be for five years, with the next election taking place in May 2024. The reason for the slightly extended initial term for the Mayor is to ensure that his or her next election is coterminous with other elections for mayoral combined authorities. That is important and is something that the leaders north of the Tyne were keen to achieve. Across the UK, with the new powerful Mayors, we can get a drumbeat behind those elections and drive turnout.
The order also makes provision for the appointment of an interim Mayor until the election takes place. The Mayor will be appointed by the members of the combined authority. Although he or she will not have any power immediately devolved to them, they will chair the combined authority, enabling them to get on with delivering the deal that we have agreed. On a recent visit north of the Tyne, I went to the housing board that has already been set up. Even though we in this place and the other place have not completed all the parliamentary steps to make the deal happen, the people on the ground are already getting on with it.
The draft order allows the establishment of a new mayoral combined authority and will remove the local government areas of Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Northumberland from their existing combined authority. The order is made pursuant to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.
The draft order will also deliver integrated transport arrangements across the whole area, with the two combined authorities covering the north-east making provision for the founding of a joint transport committee. The new committee will exercise transport functions across the two combined authorities and produce a joint transport plan. As with all combined authorities, they will have overview and scrutiny, as well as an audit committee, which will be established for the joint committee. It is important to ensure that the new committee is powerful and can deliver transport effectively across the area, not least because we want to ensure that the investment announced in the Budget—£337 million in the Tyne and Wear metro—is delivered in a timely manner for people who live there.
In laying the draft order, we followed the statutory process as specified under the 2009 Act, as amended by the 2016 Act. Establishing a combined authority is subject to a triple lock. A combined authority can be created only when the councils concerned have consented, the Government have agreed and, of course, Parliament has approved the necessary secondary legislation. I am happy to confirm that the three councils that constitute the new combined authority—Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland—have consented to the provisions in the order under which we create their combined authority. The original combined authority and the three councils leaving it have consented to the change to their combined authority area, and all seven councils involved in the existing combined authority—soon to be two combined authorities—have consented to the establishment of the joint transport committee. It has not been easy, but we have got there in the end.
We have given consideration to the particular circumstances surrounding this proposal in relation to the establishment of the new combined authority, North of Tyne, and changing the boundaries of the existing combined authority, as the law requires. We have concluded that all the statutory conditions have been met. We also consider it appropriate to establish the new combined authority with regard to the requirement under the 2009 Act to ensure that we
“have regard to the need…to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and…to secure effective and convenient local government.”
We have also considered the consultation carried out by the three North of Tyne authorities on their proposals. We are satisfied that no further consultation is required. In short, I confirm to the Committee that we believe that all the conditions have been met unambiguously. We therefore seek the Committee’s approval to make the order.
In conclusion, the draft order, if approved by this House and the other place, will establish a mayoral combined authority to which we will devolve significant and wide-ranging powers and significant budget. The deal will open the door to a new era to promote economic growth and improve productivity. As the area itself has said, the deal will create 10,000 jobs. More importantly than the order we are considering in isolation, the combined authority represents an exciting opportunity for the boroughs north of the Tyne to play their part in the new golden era for the north-east.
Unemployment in the north-east is now lower than it is in London. No one who visited the Great Exhibition of the North, as I did on several occasions, will forget it. In fact, that nationally significant event will be remembered for a generation, and not just for the 4 million visitors who went to it, but for the £184 million generated for the local economy—as a fellow northerner, I may say that we always remember the brass, if not necessarily the visitors. In addition, there is £337 million for the metro and £102 million total investment into the International Advanced Manufacturing Park, and of course we remain in discussion about an historic borderlands deal that will benefit Northumberland. This is a golden era of investment in the north-east, and I am pleased that it is a Conservative Government who are truly delivering for the region. We are the party of the region; we are the party of English devolution. I commend the order to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
It is good to be here again talking about devolution. Hon. Members may expect me to rush straight into an attack on how superficial the Government’s devolution is, but before I go there, I congratulate the leaders of all seven local authorities in the area on what has been achieved, in what has been a very testing time for local relationships. The Government could have approached things differently. They could have been far more inclusive and created greater opportunities for further devolution to the existing local authorities, which are more than capable of delivering far more. They are tried and tested, delivering good value for money and good public services, and they should not have artificial requirements laid upon them.
When it was clear that a deal could not be done, some local authorities naturally took a pragmatic view of how best to attract more investment from Government. Let us not fool ourselves about what the order is and what it is not. At best, it is a light-touch mayoral devolution package. The type of powers being devolved do not even come close to the existing devolution deals across the country. The type of money being devolved down to local authorities in those areas pales into insignificance compared with the austerity cuts that they have faced since the coalition Government—cuts that continued with the majority Conservative Government.
Local leaders are sick of waiting for the Government to come to their aid with investment and an idea for the future economy. Instead, they are developing their own visions for their local identity. There are good examples of that right across the north-east from Labour-run local authorities, which are showing real leadership of their place. The Government, to be frank, have walked off the pitch entirely. Given the type of powers being devolved in this order, my question is: why stop there? Local authorities in those areas can deal with far more than is being given in the devolution settlement.
Powers are one thing, but we need serious money. Let us look at the amount of transport investment across the north-east. Compared with most other regions, bar Northern Ireland, it gets nowhere near its fair share of capital or revenue investment. We know how important transport is for boosting local economies, connecting people to jobs and attracting inward investment. If the Government are determined to see a golden era, as the Minister said, where is the cash? They cannot do that on the cheap. Despite the best endeavours of local politicians, their economies have been left for a very long period to fight for themselves while Government have turned a blind eye to underinvestment in those areas. I credit those councils for negotiating the devolution deal on offer, but where is the Government cheque book?
It strikes me that since George Osborne walked away—or was moved to one side—the Treasury has just not been committed to devolution. From a Conservative point of view, it was originally a Treasury-led expedition—perhaps for different reasons, but that is where it came from. At the time, I was negotiating as one of the leaders on the Greater Manchester combined authority. In those devolution deals that were being struck, I witnessed a real tension between the Treasury and other Departments about where powers sit and how power is to be wrestled away from Whitehall.
The construct of some of those deals was quite odd, but they were reflective of the struggles and the frustration in Government. I do not see any of that here; I see a Government desperate to show that devolution is still making progress, when actually it is fairly superficial. I see a Minister who, perhaps for the best reasons—although he hides it well—is trying to make progress. But I am not seeing any real power given away from central Government. I am certainly not seeing any significant money being given away from central Government. The Government have realised—we have known this all along—that those best placed to deliver decent public services and make the best of limited resources in public investment are people in their local communities.
The question still remains: given their track record of delivering good public services, why should councils that could not quite get over the line on a mayoral devolution deal be cast to one side, without any devolution proposed at all? Will the Minister explain why local authorities are not fit to take on more budget responsibilities in adult education, for instance? Why can they not take on more responsibilities for getting people into work? Why are they not capable of taking transport capital investment from the Government and using that as a catalyst to attract inward investment? Why can local authorities that are tried and tested, and trusted by the public not do those things?
It is great that councils have come together. Again, I pay tribute to the council leaders who have created the deal, but if the Government are clear that there has to be a devolution deal for the whole of England, they cannot be so prescriptive about what that devolution should look like. With all due respect, it is a bit hypocritical for a Minister who is not directly elected to say to local politicians that if they want a fraction of the power that is held by a Government Minister who is not directly elected, they must move to a directly elected model in return. We do not directly elect our Chancellor, our Minister for adult education or Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Minister here today is not directly elected either. For a fraction of the power from this place, local communities are mandated by Government to have a mayoral model or they get zero. I do not think that is in the spirit of a balanced and equal relationship. For me, that is still central Government telling local authorities what they can and cannot do in a very old, tired and untrustworthy way.
If the Government are really determined to see power shifted and to give people back the control that we know they demanded during the referendum, at some point—and pretty quickly—they will have to introduce a devolution framework that covers the whole of England, so that every community is included without having one set against the other. We want to see not only powers and legislation passed in this place, but genuine resources devolved down.
It cannot escape the attention of anyone in this room that the region most affected by a hard Brexit—which is what some Government Members are looking for—will be the north-east. It will take a hit the likes of which it has not seen for decades. In that context, it is legitimate to ask whether the devolution on offer is sufficient to meet the challenges that lie ahead. It is progress and it is a step forward, but it cannot be the end. I say to the Minister: this is not “Game over”. This is not the end. The devolution on offer should be seen as minor progress—progress, by the way, that is mainly to the credit of local leaders in the local authority. The Minister needs to step up, get back round the table and ensure that further power and resources are devolved as soon as possible.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Sir David. Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton has said—he got all the hard-hitting bits out of the way—I want to declare my support for the devolution deal for North of Tyne and the creation of the new combined authority. I thank Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland authorities for their hard work alongside Government to get us to this point.
Great things are happening in my constituency of North Tyneside. Our businesses and many people are doing well, but for some of my constituents life is much more of a daily struggle. This deal, with its focus on inclusive growth and an inclusive economy, is important to me, especially because local control and significant extra funding will give people in North Tyneside access to more and better jobs. They will be able to get the skills that they need to get into work. Even people who have had caring responsibilities for years will be able to get back into work after being without it for such a long time. It will help my constituents in poor-quality housing and poor-quality work to access the opportunities they need to give them a better chance in life.
I am pleased to say that businesses across North Tyneside—from those at the brilliant Quorum business park, to the world-class engineering companies along the north bank of the Tyne—are excited about the deal. As it grows and develops, and more powers are delegated from Westminster and Whitehall to the new authority, I look forward to these powers expanding into wider areas, such as the cultural economy. That sector is very important to me, given that I have a world heritage site in my constituency, at Segedunum in Wallsend, which I urge everyone to visit.
The deal can only make our already great area north of the Tyne an even better place to live and work, and, most importantly, it will create expanded opportunities for individuals and businesses—opportunities that currently do not exist. I sincerely hope that the Committee will agree to progress the order.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Last week, I held a debate in Westminster Hall on the £3 billion investment required to make the east coast main line fit for purpose and thereby ensure it helps to deliver the economic potential of communities served by the route, including in Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland, which we all want to happen.
During that debate, I touched on the proud and pioneering role that Newcastle and the wider north-east played in the development of Britain’s railways, and therefore our country’s rapid industrial development. I also highlighted our region’s advanced manufacturing future, and the need to look forward to ensure that Newcastle and the wider north-east region can once again be part of a world-leading industrial powerhouse. I therefore broadly welcome the order as an important step in the right direction towards achieving that aim. That is not only because I am firmly in favour of the principle of devolving funding and powers to local areas, but because the combined authority is an important vehicle for delivering the sustainable economic growth that communities in Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland—and, indeed, the wider region—require.
I am very proud of my home city and all it has to offer. A recently published survey by startups.co.uk rated Newcastle as the best place in the country in which to work, from a list of 66. Newcastle and the wider North of Tyne area have so much to offer UK plc if tools, funding and powers are provided to allow them to fulfil their potential. As the Minister noted, the North of Tyne devolution deal is worth £600 million over 30 years. It is forecast to generate £1.1 billion for the local economy, create 10,000 new jobs, and leverage £1.2 billion in private sector investment over that timeframe. I sincerely hope that these changes make a difference to the lives of people in my constituency and beyond. The desire to make young people in Newcastle and the wider north-east feel that they do not need to go elsewhere to get on in life is largely what drove me to come into politics, and for that reason, creating good, skilled, well-paid, long-term job opportunities and meaningful apprenticeships must be central to the combined authority’s work.
I take issue with the Minister’s claim about the level of investment in the region. Significant economic development, funding and spending powers were available to the wider north-east region for some time under the regional development agencies, which were scrapped by the coalition Government in 2012. Like many other colleagues in the region, I fought hard against the abolition of One North East, because I knew how well it supported economic growth and jobs in our area. To put the order in some context, I and many others have campaigned hard against the punitive funding cuts meted out to local authorities in our region since 2010. Alongside the rising cost pressures, those cuts mean that Newcastle City Council alone will lose £283 million by 2020—a situation that we all hope the Chancellor will address in his Budget next week.
The fact is, however, that what is on the table today is what is available now, under this Government. We are ploughing headlong towards Brexit. I very much agree with the analysis of our Front-Bench spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton. The Government’s analysis indicates that Brexit will hit the north-east’s economy hardest, even under the Prime Minister’s preferred outcome of a comprehensive trade deal, so the ability to support the creation of good, skilled jobs in our area matters now more than ever. It is disappointing that other local authorities within the North East local enterprise partnership area will not be part of the process. I sincerely hope that the door remains open to them, should they decide to reconsider. Other colleagues on this Committee, and indeed the Minister, may want to comment on that.
I would be grateful to receive confirmation from the Minister that the current devolution deal is part of an ongoing process, with the agreement being approved today simply a first step towards achieving further powers and funding in the coming months and years. It would be particularly helpful to know whether that will include taking control of our allocation of the shared prosperity fund, due to be established by the Government to invest in areas such as the north-east that have benefited so significantly from EU structural funding. I certainly hope it will.
My final ask of the Minister is to review the myriad different organisations that now exist at a sub-national or sub-regional level, with varying geographies, and to consider how that makes it more challenging to achieve the closer partnership working—place-based decision making and spending—that we all want to see between the public and private sectors. In my region, that means that Newcastle and Gateshead are working together on tourism, inward investment and future housing strategy and on some aspects of NHS provision, such as the clinical commissioning group, but not on others. The North East local enterprise partnership incorporates seven local authorities, including Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland. It will operate alongside the North of Tyne combined authority, as well as the newly reconfigured North East combined authority. Public transport decisions will continue to be made across the wider Tyne and Wear area, while our police and crime commissioner naturally serves the communities covered by Northumbria police, namely Tyne and Wear and Northumberland.
Those are just a few examples, but another recent one is the £24 million Opportunity North East fund announced earlier this month by the Education Secretary. I understand that it will cover the whole north-east region—that is, the areas covered by the North East and Tees Valley LEPs. Despite its aims of improving social mobility, opportunities and job prospects for young people and appearing to fit neatly with those of the North of Tyne devolution deal, it remains unclear who will be responsible for managing the funding. Again, it creates more complexity when what we need to see is place-based decision making. If the Minister could provide some clarity on those issues, it would be very welcome.
Jake Berry
Those were two excellent contributions from the Back Benches. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tyneside, who correctly signposted the very strong thread of inclusive growth woven through the deal by the Government and the local authorities involved. Her refreshing contribution showed how, throughout this entire negotiation, politics has been laid aside and people of different political backgrounds and none have come together for the benefit of the entire area. It was an excellent contribution.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North asked whether the deal is the start of an ongoing process. First let us get devolution deal No. 1 done, through the Committee today and through the other place next week, but I very much agree that it should be the start of a conversation about the ongoing story of devolution across the north-east. She asked whether the shared prosperity fund would be allocated to the mayoral combined authority area. We are currently designing the shared prosperity fund, and we will consult on it widely. I will take her contribution as some early lobbying on behalf of the mayoral combined authority.
The hon. Lady also spoke very well about simplifying the complicated picture in the north-east, and I take her comments on board. Frankly, it is regrettable that the combined authority area does not cover all the seven authorities that originally came to the Government to discuss the devolution deal. The way in which the three areas north of the Tyne came together and, despite that initial setback to their prospects, came forward with a very positive deal for the people who live there gives us all hope. Of course, the door remains open to other authorities in the area to start the conversation with the Government about their ambition for a devolution deal—perhaps even about joining this deal. The Government always remain in listening mode. Although she has not spoken, let me take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who has been an exceptional champion for getting this deal done.
Let me deal with some of the shadow Minister’s comments. I spoke briefly about how it is not possible to do devolution 2.0 without devolution 1.0, so I hope he does not cause a Division but supports the draft order. He asked where the cash would come from. Look, £600 million is not an insignificant sum to invest in the north-east, and we heard from his own party’s Back Benchers how that will multiply up to more than £1 billion being invested in the economy.
I mentioned the new fleet of trains for the Tyne and Wear metro, the North East LEP growth deals, the international advanced manufacturing park at the Nissan plant in Sunderland and the £117 million Northern Spire bridge across the River Wear—I once accidentally described it as being across the River Tyne; I will try not to make that mistake again. Those projects total nearly £1 billion. In addition, this devolution cash will go directly into the north-east’s economy to drive it forward, so a total of more than £1.5 billion will have been agreed to and spent during the coalition Government and under this deal. I think that shows that the Government back the north-east.
The shadow Minister went on to say that the Government are desperate to move devolution forward but nothing is happening. I gently point out that in 13 years of a Labour Government there was no devolution at all for the English regions.
Jake Berry
I repeat: there was no devolution at all for the English regions. Clearly some people were not listening. The Opposition say we have not done enough, but we have created six metro Mayors, we are doing a deal north of the Tyne and, as I said, the Conservative party is the party of English devolution. That is typical. Frankly, it says everything about Labour Governments that they talk a good game—they talk about backing the north-east and the north of England—but it is simply that: talk. I can stand here as a Minister and say, “Here is £1.5 billion of cash going into the north-east. Here is a devolution deal for the north-east, designed not by the Government but by the people of the north-east, who rightly have an ambition to drive forward their own economy.” I hope the shadow Minister thinks about his party’s record. I know he has a car that dates from the 1980s—I saw that on his Twitter feed. I hope we are not going back to the Labour party of the 1980s, but we may be.
Finally, the shadow Minister asked about the devolution framework. The Government are committed to bringing that framework forward in the autumn, which, as he will have seen, the Secretary of State said to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Phil Wilson
I am pleased the devolution deal is going ahead. If the local authorities that are not involved in the combined authority that will come out of the draft order—Durham, for example, which is my local authority—want to join it, will the Government accept that?
Jake Berry
I rather suspect the hon. Gentleman is asking me to write a blank cheque. If he listened, he will know that I said the Government remain open to discussions with the areas outside the combined authority that the draft order will create. I would welcome the other areas of the north-east coming to the Government and talking to us about devolution. Although this is a very good deal, it is unfortunate that some of the seven boroughs that started the discussions with the Government decided to walk away from those discussions. I hope and believe that if they came to the Government in the spirit of openness to negotiate a locally supported, ground-up deal, the Government would happily listen to their proposals.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside and Northumberland Combined Authority (Establishment and Functions) Order 2018.
Environment and Rural Affairs (Miscellaneous Revocations) Order 2018
(6 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Environment and Rural Affairs (Miscellaneous Revocations) Order 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 739).
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The Opposition believe that the order, which is dated 19 June 2018 and a copy of which was laid before the House on 20 June, should be revoked; in other words, we wish to revoke the revocations order. We know how many such statutory instruments we may face, so we do not necessarily wish to keep the Government for long tonight, but we have a few important points to make.
I make no apology for the fact that most of my speech will be about the Agricultural Wages Board, although no doubt we will have plenty of time to revisit the matter in our debates on the Agriculture Bill, which has been discussed in Parliament today. However, I will begin with a few general questions to the Minister. It is interesting that the Government are still trying to revoke orders on the milk quota. I am somewhat surprised that something that ended in 2015 is still being dealt with in 2018. It would be helpful if the Minister explained that.
As someone who supports the way in which land drainage works at a local level, I am surprised that we seem to be revoking orders on flood defence operating authorities. The question is really what we are putting in their place, because they are important to areas such as mine that are affected by flooding. Land drainage committees are essential to allow our areas to function without the threat of flooding.
On the issue of hay and straw, I would be interested to know why we are revoking something that seems to be standard practice. Given how difficult this year has been for many of our farmers as a result of rising hay and straw prices, where does that fit in? The explanatory memorandum from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states that it is to do with the threat of foot and mouth. It would be interesting to know why and how we are controlling that, and why the existing legislation is being revoked.
The order is a bit of a curate’s egg; the orders that it revokes do not seem to have much in common. However, no doubt the Minister will be able to explain why we are doing what we are doing. I make no apology for speaking mainly about agricultural wages. It is sad to see what is left of the protections for workers in agricultural areas disappear completely. As a manifesto commitment, our party would reinstate the Agricultural Wages Board, but the agricultural committees, which were separate from it, are also worth trying to protect.
There is a labour crisis in rural areas. The supply of people working in the industry has been affected by the migrant issue. We have talked a lot about the seasonal agricultural workers scheme and whether the Government’s current attempt will make much difference, but unless we can provide more domestic labour, where will the labour come from? Farmers tell me that they cannot get labour, partly because we have no structure for payment any more. People are receiving lower incomes, which is not good either for them or for the way in which rural areas operate.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that post Brexit, the resourcing of labour in rural areas is paramount if those local economies are to flourish, and that the Agricultural Wages Board should be reinstated?
Dr Drew
I agree with my hon. Friend; it is important that we make that point. We differ from the Government on the issue and will continue to do so when we debate the Agriculture Bill, so I am not going to rehearse those arguments in detail now. There was quite a debate on Second Reading in relation to some of the proposals in the Bill about how poorly England has done. Scotland and Northern Ireland still have parts of the Agricultural Wages Board and, of course, Wales has its own code. In England, we have nothing. I gather that about 60% of farmers—this is not necessarily the view of the National Farmers Union, with which we will agree to disagree—said in their submissions that at the time of the Government’s decision to get rid of the Agricultural Wages Board, they were worried about how negotiations would take place. All the evidence suggests that wage levels have fallen in the agricultural sector, so it is difficult to recruit the people we desperately need, whether to pick fruit and vegetables, look after our dairy cows or do more general work. There is a crisis, which we all know about, and one way to put that crisis behind us is to ensure that we fund those workers properly—sadly, that is not currently the case.
I have touched on the inequality between the different territories in the United Kingdom, and I ask the Minister what research the Government have done on the impact of the removal of the Agricultural Wages Board to see if that is at least partly responsible for some of the crisis.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—his constituency is just across the fantastic River Severn from mine. I was listening carefully to what he was saying. Why does he think that agriculture businesses cannot do what all other businesses do? If they are having trouble recruiting labour, that is a market signal that they should perhaps pay people a little bit more. We do not have a supermarkets wages board, or a wages board for every other industry. Why does he think farmers are incapable of understanding the market signals that every employer must understand?
Dr Drew
Tesco, for example, has a union agreement with USDAW and negotiates centrally, but also has some discretion to negotiate locally. Farm workers have no mechanism now, which is as much of a problem for farmers as it is for the farm workers. Our argument has always been that there is no structure at all, which has not helped the industry. We have made that point and will not labour it because we will table an amendment to the Agriculture Bill. That is a division between us, but one that we could resolve if there were some structure in place. The revocation of the Agricultural Wages Board has had an impact in lost wages, lost annual leave, and loss of sick pay—it was not just a wage-setting structure but one that gave the industry some stability. All this is made very clear by Unite, which is the union that represents farm workers. It has carried out regular surveys showing how difficult the position is for farm workers.
Given the crisis in recruitment, we hope that the Government will find a way to bring back that arrangement. It was not put in place by a Labour Government; Lloyd George brought it about with the trade bodies that he introduced and Winston Churchill—then a Liberal MP—took measures to put it in place, so it is surprising that a Conservative Government does not see its benefits. With the revocation, the remaining figment is being removed. Locally, agricultural communities played a part, and fed into the Agricultural Wages Board. If the revocation goes through, those committees will be completely removed. I hope the Government will listen to our proper and thoughtful contributions on the Agriculture Bill Committee, but we are giving them an early opportunity to think about what might replace the Agricultural Wages Board. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The Environment and Rural Affairs (Miscellaneous Revocations) Order 2018 completes the various reforms and actions to simplify and clarify the statute book which have been identified through the red tape challenge initiative. On the point made by the shadow Minister, those reforms are not part of an EU withdrawal programme—as he said, we still have that to look forward to. They are the closing stages of the red tape challenge that took place between 2011 and 2015, which reviewed some 6,000 rules and regulations across Government. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs alone reviewed some 1,200 regulations, involving full public participation and external review. That led to recommendations to improve, simplify, merge or revoke 650 regulations.
The initiative was carried out against a clear objective: to ensure the maintenance of existing environmental and consumer standards. There was also a clear aim to remove needless red tape and bureaucracy and to support enterprise. Some of the reforms that were identified and implemented through the red tape challenge included the removal of outdated or redundant regulations to tidy up the statute book and the removal of overlapping or confusing guidance. Collectively, the reforms that were implemented by DEFRA under the red tape challenge were estimated to reduce business costs by around £300 million a year, as validated by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee.
It was in completing that work under the red tape challenge that the Environment and Rural Affairs (Miscellaneous Revocations) Order 2018 came into effect. It revoked a total of nine redundant SIs and came into effect on 11 July 2018. Turning to some of the key components that the shadow Minister raised, the order revoked a number of redundant provisions, including the Milk Quota (Calculation of Standard Quota) Order 1986, which was part of a redundant EU scheme that was first introduced in 1984, when EU production far outstripped demand. The quota regime was one of the tools that were introduced to overcome those structural surpluses. Successive reforms of the EU’s common agricultural policy have increased the market orientation of the sector, and in parallel provided a range of other, more targeted instruments to help support producers in vulnerable areas, such as mountain areas where the costs of production are higher.
Schedule 1 to the Agriculture Act 1986 provides for landlords to pay compensation to their tenants for milk quotas that are registered to them in relation to the land that makes up the holding, upon termination of tenancy of land in England and Wales. Those regulations ceased to have effect on 1 April 2015, following the final day of operation of the EU’s milk quota regime. Since the scheme ceased to have effect at that time, we believe that it is right to remove the redundant order, which serves no further purpose.
The Environment and Rural Affairs (Miscellaneous Revocations) Order 2018 also revokes the Importation of Hay and Straw Order 1979, which prohibited the landing in Great Britain of any hay or straw except under the authority of a licence. As the hon. Member for Stroud pointed out, that order was introduced to protect animal health by requiring all hay and straw to be licensed prior to importation into Great Britain, thereby allowing the Secretary of State to put in place the necessary conditions. Hay and straw are a potential source of the foot and mouth virus.
The Importation of Hay and Straw Order 1979 has long been superseded by EU legislation, which now provides conditions for the importation of hay and straw from third counties. As such, that order is redundant and has been superseded by the definition of hay and straw in the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011, which allows England to set conditions for processed hay and straw that may still carry animal health risks. DEFRA takes our obligation to protect against animal disease outbreaks very seriously. As we leave the EU we will ensure that all relevant EU provisions relating to the importation of hay and straw are maintained in our domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, thereby ensuring continuity.
The order also revokes the Code of Practice on Environmental Procedure for Flood Defence Operating Authorities (Internal Drainage Boards and Local Authorities) Approval Order 1996. That rather long-titled order, granted approval in accordance with section 61E of the Land Drainage Act 1991, set out a code of conduct. As part of the red tape challenge, DEFRA consulted widely with a number of bodies, including the Association of Drainage Authorities and the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport regarding the revocation of the code of practice. No concerns were raised, since the principles of the code are now fully embedded in good practice in any event.
Finally, and by no means least, since I know that it was the main reason the Opposition chose to bring about today’s proceedings, the order revoked the remnants of the former agricultural wages legislation, which were no longer relevant and no longer in force following the coalition Government’s decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board in 2013 via the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.
The Agricultural Wages Committees (Transitional Provisions) Order 1974 simply dissolved the then agricultural wages committees in England and Wales, in order that they could be replaced by new committees in conformity with altered local government boundaries under the Local Government Act 1972. The Agricultural Wages Committees (Areas) Order 1974 then separately established, with effect from 1 April 1974, agricultural wages committees in line with the new altered local government boundaries. That order was repealed, in respect of England, by the 2013 Act, which abolished the Agricultural Wages Board and all the agricultural wages committees that existed at that time.
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the committees that existed in 2013 to support the Agricultural Wages Board have already been disbanded, and the legislation that established them has been revoked. Today’s order does no more than remove a redundant order from the early ’70s that simply pertained to local government boundary changes and the necessary reconfiguration of advisory committees that took place at that time, which was incidentally about the time that I was born. I hope that I have reassured him that, whatever his views about the need or otherwise for an agricultural wages board, the order we are revoking is neither here nor there, since it has ceased to have any effect since those local government boundary changes in the early 1970s.
I will touch briefly on the wider argument around the Agricultural Wages Board, since I have chosen to focus most of my comments on that particular order. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean pointed out, it is not necessary to regulate to increase wages in that way, when actually we have a very tight labour market, with close to full employment, and the market is driving higher wages.
The Agricultural Wages Board was conceived before the Labour party introduced the national minimum wage, which is now supported by Members on both sides of the House. More importantly, it was the current Government that introduced a new higher national living wage. The reality is that both the national minimum wage and the new national living wage have superseded the need for an old-style agricultural wages board, which had limitations. At best, it simply duplicated what was being done by the new national minimum wage. It also did not recognise the ability to pay certain staff a salary as it related all the time to an hourly rate of pay. That prevented some of the middle-tier management from being established on a proper footing with an annual salary, bonuses and the like. It was a restrictive system in that sense. It was built for a different era and I believe it has no place in the world in which we currently exist.
Dr Drew
As I said, we will have this debate again when we consider the Agriculture Bill. I do not necessarily agree with what the Minister said. I am interested to know whether he will be able to introduce research on the impact of the loss of the Agricultural Wages Board when we consider the Bill, given the acute problems with migration. We may disagree on the cause of that, but we would agree on the consequences, which are not good.
I welcome the Minister’s points on the other issues. The order is one of those strange things that has been put together to try to deal with a number of different features, and I understand now exactly why it has been done as it has. We have not really got to Brexit—that is for another day.
Mr Harper
Can I just clarify what the hon. Gentleman is saying? He threw it in, but I did not quite follow it. On migration, was he suggesting that unlimited access to a very large labour market helps to keep wages down at the lower end? If that is the case, perhaps our exit from the European Union is an opportunity for us to decide who we want to come to this country and for those at the lower end of the labour market to see an increase in their wages, which I think would be welcomed on both sides of the House.
Dr Drew
What the right hon. Gentleman says, as a former Immigration Minister, is very interesting. I know that he had to deal with such issues. I am just making the point that we do not have enough labour in rural areas, particularly in farm supply, and that we must address that. Like everything else, that is part of a much bigger debate, which no doubt we will touch on in the Agriculture Bill, but I am just looking at what is happening at the moment, with insufficient labour to pick fruit and veg.
I talk to my farmers, just as the right hon. Gentleman will to his, and trying to get labour to do milking and some of the general work is not easy, and that situation is particularly acute because we are losing migrant labour, for whatever reason. Many of my farms have traditionally employed people from abroad for periods of time, which is why we have been critical of the Government’s attempts to address this in the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. That should have been in place a long time ago to encourage people to come to this country for a specified period for specified work. That has not happened, and we will see how the new proposal operates, but it is a bit late and it seriously under-provides for the numbers we need in the current acute crisis.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not want to prolong the debate further but, reflecting on the number of orders that this order revokes, I wonder whether those have been captured as part of the one in, one out regulatory reform process—whether we have already seen ones in for these ones out. Or is it my hon. Friend’s view that they are being saved up for the 800 Brexit statutory instruments that we are shortly to get?
Dr Drew
I do not want to be taken away from what we are debating today. I am sure we will have plenty of other opportunities to talk about Brexit issues. However, given the Government’s emphasis on the number of statutory instruments that will be associated with the Agriculture Bill, we might as well get used to what we are doing because we will be testing a lot of them in the SI process. I would prefer that to be done through primary legislation with our amendments to the Bill, but that is not where we are today.
These orders are largely historic and we do not have any issues with the revocations, other than that we are laying down the ground rules of where we will try to move to in the Bill to get the Agricultural Wages Board back in some form. I accept what the Minister says. The board was not perfect, but it needed reforming, not abolition, and that is our great sadness on the Opposition Benches. I am indebted not only to Unite but to Sustain, which is not a trade organisation per se but tries to encourage different ways of producing our food. It feels very strongly, as do Opposition Members, that that would be better advanced if we had some form of agricultural wages board.
We are open to suggestions. If the Government want to come back with a way in which we can solidify and restructure the setting of agricultural wages and conditions, we are only too willing to be part of that process. Likewise during the Bill, we will not be there to wreck it but to reform, improve and enhance it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
Work and Pensions
(6 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms McVey
In less than 10 months, my ministerial colleagues and I have met over 500 colleagues, charities and stakeholders; come to the House on 56 occasions; visited 46 jobcentres, service centres and pension centres; tabled 34 written ministerial statements; and appeared in front of Select Committees 12 times. My Department has published 637 responses to parliamentary questions, 153 pieces of guidance, 102 statistical releases, 30 research reports, and 23 consultations. We have gone to great lengths to be open.
[Official Report, 17 October 2018, Vol. 647, c. 653.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Ms McVey):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct wording should have been:
Ms McVey
In less than 10 months, my ministerial colleagues and I have met over 500 colleagues, charities and stakeholders; come to the House on 56 occasions; visited 46 jobcentres, service centres and pension centres; tabled 34 written ministerial statements; and appeared in front of Select Committees 12 times. My Department has published 2,637 responses to parliamentary questions, 153 pieces of guidance, 102 statistical releases, 30 research reports, and 23 consultations. We have gone to great lengths to be open.
Work and Pensions
(6 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for having to head off to the Select Committee meeting in a moment.
Will the Minister confirm how much of the £1 billion underpayment now being cited is due to payments made before October 2014, thanks to the Child Poverty Action Group’s successful court action, and thanks only to that? When Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs makes someone overpay tax going back years due to official error, they are paid interest and often compensation. Will the Minister confirm that these ESA recipients, who are often in a much worse position than taxpayers, will receive similar interest payments backdated to when their payments should have been made?
Sarah Newton
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I know that she does fantastic work on the Work and Pensions Committee, and no doubt we will discuss this further at the Committee.
Let us be really clear about what happened. The advice that the Department got was that section 27 of the Social Security Act 1998 applied. That was why we felt we had to make the decision to back-pay to 2014. When additional information came forward from the National Audit Office and the Child Poverty Action Group about official error, the Secretary of State took the decision that, of course, we must do what the law says and go right back to the point of conversion. It was not in any way that the Government were trying not to do the right thing. We have proactively been utterly transparent and open with the House about this error, and we want to fix it as soon as possible.
The hon. Lady asked about the two phases. The first group of people that we are looking at date back to pre-2014 and the second group are from 2014. We have started to make payments to both groups of people, and so far we have paid out £420 million to the pre-2014 group. [Official Report, 18 October 2018, Vol. 647, c.793.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George).
The correct response should have been:
Sarah Newton
The hon. Lady asked about the two phases. The first group of people that we are looking at date back to pre-2014 and the second group are from 2014. We have started to make payments to both groups of people, and we will pay out £420 million to the pre-2014 group.
Justice
(6 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I am glad that the Minister prefers sport to chain gangs, but can he tell the House when the use of sport for prisoner rehabilitation will be the norm, rather than the exception?
Edward Argar
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight again the importance of sport. The report published by Professor Meek in the summer, of which we have accepted 53 of the 54 recommendations, sets out a clear direction of travel—that is, alongside education and developing skills, and provisions for mental and physical health, sport plays a key role for prisoners in the rehabilitative process.
[Official Report, 9 October 2018, Vol. 647, c. 11-12.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar):
An error has been identified in the response that I gave to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey).
The correct response should have been:
Edward Argar
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight again the importance of sport. The report published by Professor Meek in the summer, of which we have accepted 11 of the 12 recommendations, sets out a clear direction of travel—that is, alongside education and developing skills, and provisions for mental and physical health, sport plays a key role for prisoners in the rehabilitative process.
Topical Questions
The following is an extract from topical questions to the Secretary of State for Justice on 9 October 2018.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/ Co-op)
Rory Stewart
We take the report very seriously, as we take all reports, including the recent report on domestic violence. It is absolutely right to say that we need to improve the risk assessment, the programme plans and the frequency of meeting. We are doing a consultation at the moment, to which we invite the hon. Lady to make a submission, on exactly what we can do to tighten up procedures for the CRCs. They have reduced reoffending by 2%, but there is much more that we can do on the quality of delivery.
[Official Report, 9 October 2018, Vol. 647, c. 22.]
Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart):
An error has been identified in the response that I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger).
The correct response should have been:
Rory Stewart
We take the report very seriously, as we take all reports, including the recent report on domestic violence. It is absolutely right to say that we need to improve the risk assessment, the programme plans and the frequency of meeting. We have recently conducted a consultation on exactly what we can do to tighten up procedures for the CRCs. They have reduced reoffending by 2%, but there is much more that we can do on the quality of delivery.
Topical Questions
The following is an extract from topical questions to the Secretary of State for Justice on 9 October 2018.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Rory Stewart
As I have said, we have looked very seriously at the inspectorate’s domestic violence report. It is worth bearing in mind that this has been a problem in many probation services across the world, and that it was, in fact, a problem before the CRCs were introduced. We are looking closely at the question of qualification during the current consultation, which will run for a further six months.
[Official Report, 9 October 2018, Vol. 647, c. 23.]
Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart):
An error has been identified in the response that I gave to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith).
The correct response should have been:
Rory Stewart
As I have said, we have looked very seriously at the inspectorate’s domestic violence report. It is worth bearing in mind that this has been a problem in many probation services across the world, and that it was, in fact, a problem before the CRCs were introduced. We are looking closely at the question of qualification.
Ministerial Corrections
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
Autism and Learning Disability Training: Healthcare Professionals
(6 years 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
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 221033 relating to autism and learning disability training for healthcare professionals.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. You are an expert in this issue and have campaigned on it for many years. I am sure you wish you could be contributing to the debate.
The petition text is particularly important, so I shall start by reading it to inform hon. Members fully and to put it on the record. Paula McGowan, the petitioner, wrote:
“My son Oliver was only 18 when he died in hospital on 11 November 2016. I believe his death could have been prevented if his doctors and nurses had received mandatory training. He had autism and a mild learning disability, and they weren’t trained to understand how to make reasonable adjustments for him. One in four healthcare professionals has never had training on learning disability or autism. This is unacceptable. Two thirds want more training, and one in three think a lack of Government leadership is contributing to the problem of avoidable deaths. The Government must ensure all healthcare professionals get mandatory training to address the huge health inequalities facing people with autism and a learning disability.”
That is the wording of the petition which I speak to, and I open the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I point out to the many people watching or following the debate that in the main Chamber, the Prime Minister will shortly make a statement on last week’s EU summit and that many hon. Members who would have liked to contribute to this important debate have faced a difficult choice, which is perhaps why we are relatively few.
I will start with some background. In 2016, Oliver McGowan died in hospital. He was autistic and had a mild learning disability, mild cerebral palsy, and partial seizures. I will read his mother’s account of what happened. She is waging a powerful and brave campaign. As she told me, mothing can bring Oliver back, but she wants to ensure that lessons are learned properly, so that in future, others will be safer. She would very much have liked to deliver the account herself, but under Parliament’s current rules, it is not possible for her to speak in the debate. Her account is lengthy, but it is important that it is heard in full. This is Oliver’s story, in his mother’s words:
“Oliver enjoyed college, playing football and was an amazing athlete, in training to become a Paralympian. Oliver loved life and being with his family. He was bright, achieving GCSE and BTEC qualifications, was a member of the school council and head prefect. He was a fit and active teenage boy and yet on the 11 November 2016, aged 18, he died in Southmead hospital, Bristol, in circumstances that his family believe were entirely avoidable. When we brought him to A&E with absence type seizures, we thought he would be in hospital for a couple of days at the most, and he would go to college the following week as planned.
Oliver had mild hemiplegia, absence type partial seizures and a very mild learning disability as a result of having meningitis as a baby. He also had high functioning autism. His additional needs were not obvious to most people, but anxiety was a challenge for him.
When Oliver turned 17, his absence type seizures increased and on several occasions he had to spend time in hospital for investigations. His seizures caused him to become anxious, scared and agitated and due to this, his high functioning autism became more obvious.
In October 2016, aged 18, Oliver was admitted to an adult hospital having absence type partial seizures. Oliver explained the seizures as being like several bees buzzing down one’s ears whilst you are trying to think and go about your day; incredibly frustrating and distracting. He was conscious throughout and was very scared and anxious.
A&E staff were presented with Oliver’s hospital passport, detailing how his autism and learning disability affected him and how to make reasonable adjustments. It also detailed his allergies to antipsychotic medications. This was not read but placed in a drawer without a glance.
Several doctors were talking to Oliver at once, using complex language that was hard to understand. When Oliver wanted to walk around (a normal part of his seizure activity) he was restrained by several members of staff, which heightened his anxiety.
Oliver had said clearly to the ambulance staff, he was happy to go to hospital, but he did not want to be given antipsychotic medicine, giving sound reasoning, stating ‘they mess with my brain and make my eyes go funny’. He said this again in the hospital, as did we, providing letters from previous consultant doctors explaining Oliver’s reactions to medications and busy hospital environments.
Previously, when these exceptionally strong medications had been trialled to help Oliver’s anxiety in seizure, we had seen Oliver’s behaviour change in a way we had never seen before: hallucinating, tearing at his skin with significant increase in seizure activity. We knew that Oliver was not psychotic or mentally ill. Previous senior psychiatric consultants had said the same thing, that Oliver was not psychotic or mentally ill but a teenager who had high functioning autism and a mild learning disability impacted by partial seizures. They wrote he was sensitive to medications, especially benzodiazepines. The doctors in A&E wrote ‘antipsychotic medication’ in red in the allergies box on all of Oliver’s ICU patient 24 hour care charts. The A&E doctor also sent an email to all doctors treating Oliver that he was sensitive to all antipsychotic medications.
Oliver was sedated and placed on life support in A&E to investigate his seizures. A few days later, whilst Oliver was still on life support and against Oliver’s and our strong wishes, he was given an antipsychotic drug called Olanzapine. Doctors said it was to control his anxiety when he woke up, even though we explained to them that when any seizures had finished Oliver immediately returned to his normal mild mannered self.
Oliver never woke up; the Olanzapine caused him to develop Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome, or NMS. His brain swelled so badly it was bulging out of the base of his skull causing irreversible brain damage. We were told that Oliver would be blind, deaf, no memory, no speech and would be reliant on breathing machines including tube fed.
Oliver died on Armistice Day, a fitting day given Oliver’s father is a serving senior officer in the Air Force and Oliver had lived his whole life as a military child. We can all agree that Oliver was certainly a very brave young man.”
Paula goes on to say:
“If the doctors and nurses had been trained to understand how to make reasonable adjustments for him (someone with autism and a mild learning disability), they would have known how to adapt the environment to meet his needs. There would have been no need to use a ‘chemical restraint’ and he would not have had the NMS reaction to this type of medication.
If doctors and nurses had had the training to support Oliver’s medical, social and emotional needs effectively, they would have known how to adapt their communication, using humour to settle his anxiety in a crisis, and de-escalate the situation further. They made a decision about how to manage potentially challenging behaviour as Oliver came out of sedation. They did not properly explore alternatives to using antipsychotic medication. A senior safeguarding nurse had advised a non-pharmaceutical approach. There was time to do this and consult with other professionals who knew Oliver best and were treating him in the community, as he was sedated and stable in intensive care. This did not happen although there was time.
I believe that ignorance of learning disability and autism cost Oliver his life, and we must never allow this to happen again. I believe that if Oliver hadn’t had a diagnosis of autism and a learning disability, and presented in hospital with the same symptoms, he would not have been prescribed an antipsychotic. Oliver’s death is not an isolated case, with evidence in relation to learning disability showing 1,200 avoidable deaths every year, and women with a learning disability dying nearly 30 years earlier than the general population.”
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I can see that my hon. Friend is coming to the end of his peroration, so I thought I would intervene briefly. I understand that the Government have announced a review, but does he not agree that something a little more urgent is needed?
Daniel Zeichner
I am not coming quite to the end, but I have almost reached the close of Paula’s statement. I think my hon. Friend will understand from the suggestions later in my speech that I absolutely agree with her conclusion.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman not find it shocking and surprising that younger people with autism or learning difficulties have a higher incidence of dying in hospital than older people living with those conditions? It is hard to know exactly why that is, but he is discussing the case of a very young man that resulted in a completely unnecessary death.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady is very expert on such issues. I, too, am struck by that statistic. I do not know the answer, but it is the kind of thing we need to find out about.
To conclude Paula’s statement:
“Mencap’s Death by Indifference report, published ten years ago, set out many areas of concern behind avoidable deaths, and these findings have been built on by the detailed information now coming out of the national mortality review (LeDeR) process. Mencap’s Treat me well campaign report states that 1 in 4 doctors and nurses has never had any training on learning disability. This was our experience and is unacceptable, that’s why I launched this Government petition for all doctors and nurses to receive appropriate higher level mandatory training which could have saved Oliver’s life.
There needs to be a culture change in the way people with autism and a learning disability are treated by NHS doctors and nurses. This needs to be led from the top down by doctors and the GMC. It is not acceptable that people who have autism and learning disabilities die for no other reason than health professionals have not been properly trained on how to support them and work outside the limits of the medical model. We must do everything in our power to prevent future deaths like Oliver’s from happening again.”
That is Paula McGowan’s account. She started this petition to Parliament calling for mandatory autism and learning disability training for healthcare workers. The petition now has more than 50,000 signatures, and Paula is present in the Public Gallery to watch our proceedings.
An inquest has found that the medication was not wrongly prescribed, but Oliver’s family and Mencap were very unhappy with the inquest’s conduct and conclusions. The family firmly believe that better understanding of Oliver’s autism could have prevented his death. Paula believes passionately that Oliver’s experiences should lead to change, so that a lack of understanding does not result in future deaths.
There have been other cases such as Oliver’s, and every premature death of young person who is autistic or has a learning disability is a tragedy that we should be able to avoid. When Connor Sparrowhawk—or LB, as he is known—passed away in Slade House in Oxford, his mother called for:
“An effective demonstration by the NHS to making provision for learning disabled people a complete and integral part of the health and care services provided rather than add on, ad hoc and (easily ignored) specialist provision.”
There are, sadly, many other cases. Only last week, for example, a high-profile case was in the media about Bethany, aged 17, who has autism and extreme anxiety. She, it seems, has been locked in a seclusion room for almost two years.
Last week, I met a local volunteer-led group, Caring for Cambridgeshire’s Homeless, who help homeless people in Cambridge. I was introduced to a 21-year-old man with autism and learning disabilities who is living on the streets. His safe place: behind a wheelie bin, at the back of a shop. His case is complex, but while volunteer interventions are a lifeline for that young man, he should be getting professional medical support from those trained to understand his needs.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent, John Hobbs, whose grandson is autistic, about the need for a national database for autism and associated conditions designed for the purposes of splitting the autism spectrum into subsets?
Daniel Zeichner
I am not sure that I am sufficiently expert to answer that question straight off, because it is a complicated one, but it is certainly worth looking into further.
I shall explain some wider issues too. This weekend, I attended the excellent Volunteer for Cambridge event organised by Cambridge City Council and volunteer services, where I met Heather Lord from Cambridgeshire Healthwatch and Tara Forkin from Cambridgeshire Deaf Association. Tara told me, through the signer, about the experiences of deaf people in the health system. They, too, find that treatment is sometimes administered to them in ways they find baffling and frightening, too often with no one finding a way to listen to them. As Heather rightly asked, almost 25 years after the controversies around the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which some of us still remember, why are people continuing to have to fight the battle? Why is it not yet won?
This subject is clearly highly sensitive. The examples I have given highlight heartbreaking incidents. Clearly, we must work harder and put measures in place to ensure that other people are kept safe after we as a society have failed Oliver, LB and 1,200 other avoidable deaths each year, according to research by Mencap. Even more remains to be done, however.
We must go back to the very beginning, as access to healthcare from the start can be extremely difficult for those with autism or learning disabilities. Seemingly simple tasks—to most of us—such as making an appointment over the phone, are a barrier to many of them. If we cannot make an appointment, or if we feel anxious about doing so, we are less likely to seek healthcare, even if we are experiencing symptoms that others would immediately refer to a doctor.
Some autistic people and people with learning disabilities find expressing themselves difficult, especially if that includes discussing intimate personal health issues, whether physical or mental. Some learning disabilities or types of autism make it harder for people to work out the sensations that their bodies are feeling, which can make it more difficult for them to realise that they are ill or need support. In terms of mental health, the group therapy sessions, for example, which work so well for some people, are often inaccessible to those with autism, who can feel very socially anxious.
Last week, the all-party parliamentary group on mental health, of which I am a vice chair, published its review, “Progress of the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health: On the road to parity”, which underlined the mental health inequalities that I have been discussing. That report recommends:
“Health Education England should improve development and training of frontline care staff with a specific focus on mental health, learning disability and autism so the existing workforce is supported and equipped to deliver direct care and support to those groups.”
The report explains:
“We heard that people with learning disability or autism (or both) routinely have their referrals to mental health services turned down because some services ‘do not accept referrals from that group’. Mental illness presents very differently in people with a learning disability or autism. As a result, symptoms of mental illness can be wrongly attributed to a person’s learning disability or autism meaning that this group does not receive the treatment they need for their mental health problems.”
Also, according to the report, the esteemed Baroness Hollins, a leading member of the APPG inquiry, emphasised throughout that
“services are legally obliged to implement reasonable adjustments so people with learning disability or autism or both can engage with mental health services. This doesn’t appear to be happening.”
Many doctors and nurses of course strive to understand autism and learning disabilities, and to adapt their practice to better cater for those needs, but with increased pressures on staffing and endless demands on the time of medical professionals, alongside increased demand, that will inevitably not be the case for every single individual in the NHS. We must better equip and empower our healthcare workers.
With the right training, doctors and nurses can help autistic people and those with learning disabilities feel more comfortable and, ultimately, receive better, more focused healthcare. Everyone working in the NHS will see autistic and learning-disabled people, even if unaware of it. Some of those workers could have an inaccurate or narrow view of what someone with a learning disability looks like, or of the traits of an autistic person, due to inaccurate stereotypes or unhelpful media representation of such conditions. All frontline staff, therefore, from GP receptionists to consultants in accident and emergency, should receive some evidence-led training about autism. The development of that training should be informed by autistic people and their families.
Paula McGowan has called for doctors and nurses to receive advanced training—tier 2—in autism and learning disability as soon as is reasonably practicable. She expressed to me that it must cover legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 1983, focusing on key areas such as reasonable adjustments to care, consent and best-interests decision making. She would like it to be
“mandatory that Oliver’s story should be used as a case study in all training”,
and for the training to be named after him: the Oliver McGowan mandatory training. As Members present will agree, Oliver’s story carries huge weight, and attaching his name will exemplify the training’s deserved importance.
We need to focus on supporting the health professionals who see autistic people and people with learning disabilities most often to understand the nuances of their health. The community is diverse, and some of the physical and mental health problems those people experience require responses different from those required by non-autistic or non-disabled people.
Dr Whitford
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I speak as a breast cancer surgeon of more than 30 years. The issue lies not so much with medical and nursing staff, who deal often with autistic people or people with learning disabilities, but with the people who do not deal with them often. It is those people—people in A&E and other hospital departments—who do not have the skills who really need training.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Training needs to be provided to all staff, but absolutely, those who are not exposed to such people are a particular issue.
My comments so far have been decidedly non-partisan, and I hope Members from across the House are able to support most of what I have suggested. However, before concluding, I must make some observations about the staffing pressures that affect our public services—particularly changes to student nursing bursaries.
We have heard in the House many times that the current financial settlement for student nurses is insufficient given the intensity of their courses. I and many others believe that nursing students need bespoke financial support if the Government are to meet their commitment to growing the nursing workforce. Those students need support for living costs to incentivise a wider range of applications. There are many ways that can be done—through universal grants for students in recognition of their placements, means-tested grants to maintain diversity or targeted support for parents and carers, as many nursing students come to university later in life.
Since the coalition Government came to power in 2010, specialist areas such as learning disability and mental health nursing have been the worst hit by the wider staffing crisis. Those specialties struggle to recruit, since mature students are particularly likely to choose them. The Royal College of Nursing reports that there are 40.5% fewer learning disability nurses—2,176 fewer full-time equivalent nurses—today than in 2010. Despite Government claims, the removal of the NHS bursary in England failed to increase the number of nursing students. Recent data shows that the number of students accepted on to nursing courses in England has fallen by a further 4% in the past year, and by 8% since student funding was removed in 2016.
Intelligence from RCN regional networks indicates that directors of nursing across England are escalating concerns about course provision. They are concerned about the stark regional variation in course provision for learning disability nursing—particularly the risk of course closures in the south of England—which may exacerbate existing regional workforce supply disparities. The huge workforce pressure risks poorer care for learning disabled people. A commitment from the Government to encourage students into learning disability nursing may improve standards of care and patient safety.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that, while Brexit dominates much of our time in Parliament, we must we also have the opportunity to debate and get into the granular detail of important issues such as the one he highlights?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. We could probably find favour across the House and across the country for moving on from some issues at the moment, but she is absolutely right—such issues are very pressing and probably of huge importance to most people, especially when failure to address them leads to the kind of tragedy we have heard about.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As a Bristol MP, I thought it was particularly important for me to be here. Southmead Hospital is not in my constituency, but the University of the West of England nursing course provision is. I back up entirely what my hon. Friend says about the difficulty of getting qualified nursing staff. If staff are to have all the extra responsibilities and training that have been suggested, we must ensure that the sector is properly resourced and that properly trained people come through into the profession.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which I am sure we will return to. Whatever changes there are in our relationships with other countries, the shortage of qualified nurses is a huge problem—it is something like 22% in my constituency. We are unlikely to make progress on this issue unless we have the people to do it.
It is difficult to make that point at a time of such intense financial pressure on the NHS, but I remind the House that that pressure is a choice. We are a rich country, and a change in the allocation of resources could dramatically change the state of our healthcare system. However, that stress, which stems from a lack of resources, staffing, beds and specialist care, can lead to a culture in which it is difficult to provide personalised care and have the confidence to deviate from established procedure.
Let me conclude on a slightly more optimistic note. In September, in a written statement in response to the learning disability mortality review, the Minister committed to completing a public consultation on proposals for mandatory learning disability training for all health and care staff. However, that change must be quick—we cannot afford it to end up, like so many Government initiatives, in endless consultation and no action.
In England, there is a duty in the Autism Act 2009 statutory guidance for all health and care staff to have appropriate autism training, but the implementation of that duty is poor. In response to a 2016 Public Health England survey, only 17% of localities reported having training plans for all health and care staff, while 10% reported having no plan in place. The Government must commit to mandatory autism training as well as learning disability training.
The National Autistic Society remind us:
“In August, NHS England announced that autism, alongside learning disability, will be one of its four clinical priorities in the upcoming 10-year plan to improve health services. This is a great step towards making sure that autistic people are supported by the NHS just like anyone else. Alongside tackling long diagnosis waiting times and supporting good mental health, we believe that the Long Term Plan should outline a comprehensive national training programme for all health staff.”
The learning disability mortality review, which was published in May, found that men with a learning disability die on average 22.8 years earlier than the general population, while women die 29.3 years earlier. Autistica’s research shows that autistic adults without a learning disability are nine times more likely than non-autistic adults to die from suicide—a truly shocking statistic. Mencap’s research shows that almost a quarter—23%—of healthcare professionals have never received training on learning disabilities, and almost half believe that has contributed to avoidable deaths. Beyond nurses and doctors, we need to train NHS workers such as receptionists and facilities managers on how small adjustments can hugely increase access for disabled and autistic people.
I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Paula McGowan’s powerful testimony shines a clear light on what needs to be done. The case is clear. We cannot risk any more cases like Oliver’s. This cannot afford to wait.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Dame Cheryl. I recognise your expertise and knowledge in this area. As one of the leading Members of the House, you have worked tirelessly to represent the rights of those with autism, and you took the Autism Act through Parliament. My comments will pale in comparison. Your position today prevents you from speaking, but I want those watching the debate to know how indebted Members on both sides of the House are to you for your efforts.
I speak in my capacity as the Member of Parliament for Kingswood, near Bristol. My constituent, Paula McGowan, has worked tirelessly and courageously to highlight the tragic death of her son, Oliver McGowan, on 11 November 2016. Paula’s work to establish Oliver’s campaign and call for mandatory autism and learning disability training for NHS professionals led to the creation of a petition, which had been signed by 51,310 people as of around 3 pm. I am extremely grateful to the Petitions Committee for scheduling this debate on that petition.
I speak as Paula’s local representative, but what she has achieved in the face of such extreme grief and anguish is so remarkable that, in all honesty, she should be telling Oliver’s story in this debate. That story is awful and harrowing, but it needs to be told. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for putting Paula’s testimony on the record. She sent me some additional personal words. It is important that I place those words on the record, too, not only for the benefit of Members present but so that they stand as a testament to Oliver and so that his death is remembered eternally in the House’s official record, Hansard.
Paula states:
“From the moment Oliver was born, we knew that he was special and our love for him was overwhelming. Oliver was born premature and developed meningitis at three weeks of age. He was very ill and we were told they did not expect him to survive. However, Oliver began to recover. Everybody who came into contact with Oliver warmed to him and could not resist spending time with this baby.
Sadly, Oliver developed a second episode of meningitis and was incredibly ill. Amazingly, against all odds and many months of hospital treatment, Oliver’s strength and determination shone through and he survived once again, and as always with that beautiful heart warming smile that everybody was drawn to. Oliver—as a result of an infarction caused by the meningitis—was left with mild cerebral palsy, focal epilepsy and later on a diagnosis of high functioning autism.
Oliver’s disabilities did not hold him back. He had a can do attitude and amazed everybody with his achievements. He played for the South and North West Centres of Excellence England development football squads. He was a registered athlete with the Power of 10 and was ranked 3rd best in the country for athletics. Oliver was a member of Team Bath and was being trained to become a Paralympian.
Oliver was a natural leader and became a prefect and chair of the school council, later college. He attained several GCSE and BTEC examinations. He went on to attend National Star College in Cheltenham. Their opinions of Oliver were very complimentary, writing how he was often mistaken to be a member of staff; how friendly and kind he was, supporting students who were less able than himself; his wicked sense of humour; and the aspirations they had for him to start a sports course at a local ski centre.
Oliver brought so much happiness and fun to our lives; he always saw the best in everything and taught all of us how to look at things differently. Oliver never failed to light up a room with the sound of his laughter. He wanted to make everybody happy and did his best to achieve that. Despite his limitations, he never complained or asked, ‘Why me?’ He accepted everything and always with a smile. His courage and enthusiasm was inspirational. We were told by his neurologist that Oliver had a full life expectancy and it was expected he would live an independent life with a little support.
On 15 October 2015, Oliver was admitted to a children’s hospital, having what we—his parents—and college staff recognised to be simple partial seizures. These caused Oliver to be anxious, agitated and confused. After several weeks of tests Oliver was discharged home and given sertraline—an antidepressant medication—to treat his anxiety. We were surprised as Oliver was not depressed. Once this medication was increased, it caused a change to Oliver’s mood and increased his seizures greatly.
He was admitted back to the same hospital on 15 December 2015, but this time was given antipsychotic medications. The doctors were misunderstanding Oliver’s autistic behaviours to be an ictal psychosis, and his normal autistic obsessions to be delusional behaviours. The effect on Oliver was catastrophic. Oliver’s seizures threshold and anxiety deteriorated and he was eventually held against his will under the Mental Health Act, section 2. We challenged this on numerous occasions, stating we felt it was the drugs that were causing the changes to Oliver’s mood and seizures.
A psychiatric bed could not be found and doctors decided to remove the antipsychotic medications. Within days Oliver’s mood and seizure activity improved and he was discharged back home into our care. A community psychiatrist wrote Oliver was sensitive to antipsychotic and benzodiazepine medications.
On 15 April 2016, Oliver was readmitted back to the same hospital having simple partial seizures and was anxious. Sadly, Oliver was again given antipsychotic medications, one or more of which caused a serious side effect called oculogyric crisis. He was left like this for several hours as the doctor at first believed it was behavioural. After four hours he was given procyclidine medication. Again, Oliver’s mood changed significantly. He was hallucinating, having up to 30 seizures a day—something we had never seen happen—and had problems urinating, extreme high blood pressure readings and sweating, all of which were linked to medications.
We strongly believed the drugs were the cause of the decline in Oliver’s mood difficulties. It was obvious that doctors and nurses had little to no understanding of autism and how autistic behaviours could present in a person with ongoing seizures. When in seizure, Oliver was always fully conscious, and because he had no control of the seizures they caused him to be frustrated and scared.
At my request, Oliver was transferred to a specialist adult hospital, which I thought would have understood Oliver’s epilepsy better. Oliver had been provided with a letter stating his reactions to previous medications. Sadly, the use of physical restraint was increased with up to eight staff being involved. Oliver was suddenly not allowed any privacy with his personal care. He had three staff sat around his bed and he was kept in a darkened room. Oliver was very frightened and he told me just how scared the staff were making him feel.
Oliver was again given different antipsychotic medications and consequently detained against his will and transferred to a specialist mental health ward. The different approach from skilled staff allowed Oliver to improve within days. The words from staff including doctors from the unit were that Oliver was not psychotic or mentally ill, and that his placement there was a total misuse of the Mental Health Act. They reduced all antipsychotic medications and Oliver was discharged after a few days into the care of a specialist learning disability team, again with a letter saying that he was sensitive to antipsychotics and benzodiazepines.
The team was very supportive and specialised in people with autism and learning difficulties. A consultant psychiatrist in learning disability wrote that Oliver was not psychotic or mentally ill. He believed Oliver’s behaviours were a result of autism and mild learning difficulties and an environment that was not adapted to meet his needs.
Sadly, on 16 October 2016, Oliver had a cluster of seizures and was admitted to an adult general hospital. Oliver told ambulance staff and also doctors in A&E not to give him antipsychotic medications as they messed with his brain and made his eyes go up. He was reassured by doctors they had no intention of using those medications. We gave doctors a folder of supporting letters stating Oliver’s reaction to antipsychotic medications, and it was subsequently written in bold red ink on Oliver’s medical care sheets he was intolerant to all antipsychotics.
Oliver was intubated. The safeguarding officer was consulted on how to manage Oliver’s anxiety when sedation was reduced. His advice to the doctors was a non-pharmaceutical approach and to use soft handcuffs. We were told we should be present as we would be able to reassure and comfort him. We were told that most people would become highly anxious when woken from being sedated. This advice was not listened to and sedation was reduced without our presence. According to staff, Oliver became anxious. He would have felt scared waking to find tubes in his throat and in unfamiliar surroundings without familiar faces. Full sedation was increased.
We were consulted by a neuropsychiatrist who had met Oliver for two 10 minute appointments in the community. She asked us about giving Oliver an antipsychotic. We made it very clear about Oliver’s previous reactions to this type of medication and that she did NOT have Oliver’s or our permission to administer any antipsychotic medications. Despite this, Oliver was given the antipsychotic medication olanzapine at a low dose that evening without our knowledge. The next day, we again made it clear to all doctors and nurses that they did not have Oliver’s permission to administer this.
Oliver, over the next few days, developed a temperature of 42°. Because doctors said his liver function was elevated he was not given any medication to control the temperature other than a light blow up mattress filled with cold air. This was not effective. Doctors could not understand the decline in Oliver’s condition and they sent him for a scan of his liver and lungs. Unfortunately, it was several more days before they scanned his brain. It was so badly swollen it was bulging out the base of his skull. We were told Oliver had neuroleptic malignant syndrome, a rare but serious side effect of antipsychotic medications.
A week later, the decision was made to turn Oliver’s life support machines off. Oliver passed away several days later on 11 November 2016: Armistice Day—poignant given we are a military family.”
Paula continues:
“Oliver’s was a life wasted due to doctors not communicating effectively with family and practitioners who knew him well and who were in daily contact with the hospital. We believe the doctors were arrogant and ignorant and believed they knew Oliver better than his parents. They did not consult wider, when there was ample opportunity to do so.
We have since been told by the doctor who administered the antipsychotic drug that she would have given it regardless of our wishes, as she believed it was in Oliver’s best interests, and she would do the same thing again given the same situation knowing that Oliver has lost his life. We understand that many people receive the medications that Oliver was given, often for managing a mental health condition, and do so without suffering the effects that Oliver had. In Oliver’s case, we had clear understanding that he was sensitive to these medications and we believe they should not have been prescribed.
We believe that Oliver’s death was very preventable. We believe that Oliver was given excessive drugs due to medical staff not understanding autism impacted by seizure activity. They did not ever try to adapt the environment to meet his needs, but used excessive restraint methods. They failed to make any communication with community-based professionals who were working with Oliver on a daily basis and knew him well.”
A later inquest into Oliver’s death concluded that the care Oliver received in the lead-up to his death was “appropriate”. It stated that despite warnings from Oliver and his parents, the development of complications from medication could not have been predicted. As a local Member of Parliament, I was in contact with Paula after Oliver passed away to support her when she approached the local police and coroner’s office to ask for an investigation into the death of her son. I will continue to offer all the support that I can.
In spite of that inquest’s conclusions, the Government’s learning disabilities mortality review programme, which investigated Oliver’s case, highlighted the challenges that vulnerable people such as Oliver still face in gaining access to appropriate care. There remain serious disparities in the quality of health support and care received by people with autism and learning disabilities. The evidence shows, as has already been mentioned, that people with learning disabilities die at a far greater rate than others. Often, that can be prevented with the right care and support and better awareness and training.
Recent reports from Mencap, which has been recognised for its ongoing efforts and campaigns, found that one in four doctors and nurses has never had any type of training on learning disability. Clearly, that is unacceptable. Every person should receive the same high quality of care, whether or not they have a learning disability. Although we have made progress in our collective understanding of autism and learning disabilities, much more needs to be done to ensure that vulnerable people receive the right support from our healthcare system when they need it most. I am encouraged that the Government have accepted all the recommendations from the learning disabilities mortality review, including recommendation 6, which proposes the introduction of mandatory training for all health and care staff. I am also pleased that they have committed to delivering that training in partnership with people with experience, including families and parents like Paula.
I welcome the Government’s proposals for a consultation on options for delivering that essential training to staff, which is due to be completed by the end of March 2019. With that in mind, I would welcome it being arranged for Paula to meet the Minister to discuss Oliver’s campaign and its consequences, and for this work to continue. I would also welcome the Minister and the Department continuing their close working with Mencap, the National Autistic Society, other charities and relevant organisations, and indeed Members of Parliament such as the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland)—he is in his place but his ministerial role affords that he cannot speak in the debate—who have personal experience of autism. It is right to draw on that.
Lyn Brown
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman and have been really affected by his speech; I am sure he has been affected as the local MP. I pay tribute to him for how he is putting his case, but does he not agree that the review is unnecessary and that what we actually need is some action now?
Chris Skidmore
I agree that we need clarity, not only extra guidance. The review is one step in a journey that has yet to be completed. I own up to this, having been a Minister previously: there is a commitment to looking at guidance and training, but I am concerned with the implementation. Going forward, we could produce all the training, guidance and material we want, but how will we monitor the outcomes? What are we seeking to achieve?
A couple of months into my job as a Minister in the Cabinet Office, having previously been secretary of the all-party parliamentary group for disability as a Back Bencher, I wanted to look at how we could increase and encourage electoral registration among those with learning disabilities. The answer I got was, “Well, there is guidance out there already, Minister. The Electoral Commission has produced documentation.” However, it was patently clear to me that it was not being implemented in polling stations across the country. I would like to see a commitment from the Minister not just for consultation and guidance to be produced but to ensure that we have accountability. The Care Quality Commission must be involved, and people must be judged on the standards introduced; this must be followed through.
In conclusion—this may chime with what the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) said—I return to the words of Paula McGowan:
“If the guidelines and principles from NHS England’s STOMP—stopping the over-medication of people who have learning disabilities—project had been followed with healthcare professionals being able to listen to family and specialist colleagues, then we firmly believe that Oliver would still be here today. We believe that Oliver’s premature death should be in the public’s interest, and I challenge the Government to: ask people with a learning disability, autism or both, their families and carers for their opinion and concerns about treatment; listen to all involved and show respect to those opinions and concerns; and do something about it and work in partnership with us. Specifically, NHS professionals who provide specialist care in learning disability and autism should: put people at the heart of all decision making; respect our point of view; not make decisions without us; and enable us to understand complex decisions in a way that is relevant to all and provide information and explanation.
In particular, check if your patient has a hospital passport. Respect your patient by getting down to the same level as them—don’t stand if your patient is sitting. Give them personal space. Modify your language so that it is clear and precise, and don’t use medical jargon. Check your patient has understood what you are saying. Effectively listen to your patient. Give your patient time. Make them feel valued and included in their treatment plan. Mostly”—
above all—
“offer reassurance. In addition, liaise with healthcare colleagues in general hospitals to raise awareness and understanding of learning disability, autism and the principles of STOMP. And, above all, do everything in your power to prevent a story like Oliver’s from having to be told again.”
From my own point of view, I hope that we can all work together to ensure that we do not have to stand here again, making the case for change. Let us support Oliver’s campaign and ensure that his death marks a watershed moment and a turning point in how we treat those with autism and learning disabilities in the NHS.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for a moving and harrowing account of what happened to Oliver, and to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), the local MP, who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue.
I also pay tribute to Paula McGowan, who has shown such bravery in campaigning for her son. She and her family have felt such suffering following the death of Oliver nearly two years ago—I cannot imagine the pain of losing a child. I speak for all Members when I say that our thoughts are with her and her family.
The cross-party support for the petition shows the strength of feeling of all Members of this House, who want those with learning difficulties and disabilities to receive the best possible treatment. We all want to see NHS staff equipped to make the adjustments that so often prove the difference between life and death. I am sure the Minister agrees.
It is welcome that the Government are acting broadly in line with the recommendations of the learning disabilities mortality review. However, I felt their response fell short in one particular area. Page 19 refers to the introduction of an oversight group that allows for the input of self-advocates. That is positive, and I welcome that, but the response does not spell out how success will be measured, how targets will be checked, who will decide on service changes, nor how the implementation of changes will be assessed. More effective training programmes, such as those demanded by this e-petition, are developed and led by those with learning disabilities. The Government could have been more explicit in acknowledging that.
I want to speak about Treat Me Right: an inspirational autism and learning disability awareness training programme operating across north-west London and in my constituency. For Members and those in the audience who have not heard of it, Treat Me Right has been running for 25 years. It is delivered by Certitude, a not-for-profit social care provider. The programme was commissioned by the north-west London collaboration of clinical commissioning groups last year, following a grant from Health Education England.
Although reducing the number of avoidable deaths will require a broader strategy, Treat Me Right’s impact is beyond doubt. Having been co-founded by those with learning disabilities, it is now led by people with learning disabilities. It provides essential support for A&E staff, mental health teams and the London ambulance service.
Between June 2017 and March 2018, Treat Me Right trained 942 healthcare practitioners across north-west London in learning disability and autism awareness, and it will train an additional 800 NHS autism champions by the end of this year. The statistics do not tell the full story of the programme’s success, but they do go some way to explain why I and other MPs nominated it for the care and compassion award at this year’s NHS 70 awards.
There are two clear components in the petition’s demands for NHS staff to receive mandatory training: first, the need to pinpoint critical reasonable adjustments for patients with learning disabilities; and secondly, the need to alter a damaging culture that fails people with autism or learning disabilities, preventing them from receiving the treatment they need. On that, Mencap’s statistics are striking: just under two thirds of healthcare professionals—64%—said that a lack of practical resources for them and their colleagues contributes to the problem of avoidable deaths. That is shocking. Just over a quarter say that negative attitudes towards those with autism might also be a contributing factor.
Programmes such as Treat Me Right are proving to be an effective remedy. Trainers explain clearly how autism or their own learning disability feels for them, so NHS staff can learn about uniquely challenging situations that may arise during the course of their work. In addition to training, the programme offers two tailored health toolkits for people with autism—health action plans and health passports—which are essential for signposting the critical adjustments necessary on their arrival at A&E and other departments.
The Government’s response to the review talks of ensuring
“vigilant and proactive support for people with a learning disability.”
How better to achieve that than through mandatory training, and who better to lead that training than those who know the specifics of living with autism or a learning disability?
I welcomed John, a co-founder of Treat Me Right, to Parliament earlier in the year. He felt strongly that the training programme allowed him to share his experience of living with Down’s syndrome with NHS professionals, to tangible effect. His experience is reflected in the comments of healthcare professionals across Hampstead and Kilburn who have benefited from training by Treat Me Right. The team at Brent psychological services said that the training, especially on autism spectrum disorders, was like
“receiving a pair of glasses after not knowing you needed them”.
Such testimonies, and the fact that approximately 3,300 adults are registered with Brent CCG as having been diagnosed with a learning disability, mean that the work of Treat Me Right could eventually offer vital healthcare support to thousands of my constituents who have been suffering for years.
Kerry McCarthy
It sounds like a fantastic organisation. I wonder whether those lessons could also be rolled out to other public services. I have been talking to Avon and Somerset police, where there have been issues about tasering people who clearly should have been treated differently. Does my hon. Friend agree, particularly as the criminal justice system and the police often come into contact with people with autism and do not know how to treat them?
Tulip Siddiq
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the issue is not confined to the healthcare services. It crosses borders, and she made an effective point about the police and others dealing with the challenges of autism that arise in everyday life.
Hannah Bardell
On a similar point, does the hon. Lady agree that staff in the Department for Work and Pensions should also be trained? Some of my constituents have not have positive experiences of the welfare system. I know that the staff have a difficult job, but often people are marginalised because of a lack of understanding.
Tulip Siddiq
Similar things come up in my surgeries. People come in and complain bitterly about the way they have been treated, simply because they have not been understood by service providers, whether at the Department for Work and Pensions when they needed social security, or elsewhere.
I would like the Minister to address how she will ensure that those with learning disabilities and their families will be treated as equal partners in setting targets for success and in deciding whether change is happening in the right way. How does she anticipate that all healthcare professionals, and not just a few, will get good quality learning disability training, and how will the challenge of resourcing that be met? We have heard Mencap’s estimate that 1,200 people with learning disabilities die every year because of an avoidable lack of access to good healthcare: it was pointed out earlier in the debate that it seems more deaths are of young people, which is shocking. I hope that the Minister will address that situation, which is simply horrifying. I hope that, in addition to answering my specific questions, she will explain how her Department is accelerating its efforts to reduce that figure dramatically in the coming months and years.
I pay tribute once again to Paula McGowan and those seated in the Public Gallery today, because I know it has been a difficult campaign so far.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Dame Cheryl; we are debating an issue on which you have done much, not only to raise awareness, but to transform the legislative framework in which we operate. I thank the Petitions Committee for ensuring that time was made available for the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on his opening speech. I pay tribute to Oliver’s family in particular, and to the many other families who have done so much and worked so hard, exhausting reserves of energy and emotion that I am not sure many of us could have found, to ensure that some public benefit can come from their individual personal tragedies.
I have rather less direct personal experience of autism than many of the Members who will contribute today, but as a former governor at a special needs school that had a particular focus on autism I am familiar with many of the issues that Members have raised. As of last week I am a proud officer of the all-party parliamentary group on autism. I am fortunate to benefit from the fact that many constituents contact me to give me advice and tell me of their and their families’ experience in the healthcare system. I also benefit from the advice and experience of my former colleagues, the staff and governors at the school, and the National Autistic Society, which does much important work to push forward the agenda.
As has already been said, there are clear healthcare inequalities between people who have autism and the general population. That is clearly recognised by the Government. It was recognised in their mandate to NHS England and, of course, as one of four clinical priorities in the 10-year plan published last month. Those inequalities clearly have many causes. There are many co-factors more likely to affect people who have autism, such as issues to do with unemployment, mental health and poverty; but one of the most obvious ones, which is referred to in the petition, is the interaction between the national health service and healthcare professionals, and people with autism.
For many of us it can be hard to decipher what medical professionals tell us, particularly when we are very ill and perhaps not thinking as straight as we might. For people with learning disabilities and communication difficulties, the difficulty is on an entirely different scale. For many people with autism it is a question of heightened difficulty not only in understanding what they are being told, but also, of course, in communicating how they feel physically, emotionally and mentally. It is therefore essential that understanding of autism becomes part of the mandatory training for healthcare professionals, just as it is finally becoming a core part of initial teacher training.
Like other hon. Members, I am pleased to see that the new core skills education and training framework finally sets out proposals for a tiered approach and levels of training depending on levels of contact that can be expected for people with autism. There are half a million people in England—more than 1% of the population—who we already know have autism, so there can be barely any part of the healthcare system in which any worker is unlikely to have regular contact with patients with autism and their families. So it is a core part of their job and responsibilities to be able to respond, and to make necessary adaptations in the way they behave. That is a core part of being a healthcare professional.
Dr Whitford
There are throughout society people with varying skills, disabilities or learning difficulties, so do not we need to bring that right into medical and nursing school, and try to have a philosophy that counters what we see in society? That, frankly, is attacking the “other”. We have had so much of the politics of “other”, and attacking the “other” socially, and we need to try to get rid of that when people are at school and in medical and nursing school—not just when they have qualified.
Mike Wood
There are two important and slightly distinct points there. For mainstream education it is vital that an understanding of autism and other learning disabilities is part of personal, social, health and economic education—I do not know whether we still call it that—for precisely the reasons that the hon. Lady describes. Of course, in medical or nursing school it is vital that there is a core level of understanding of the issues for autism and other learning disabilities and of the impact they have on how people need to do their job once they have qualified and are practising and in work. That needs to be embedded from day one, but just as importantly, it must be reinforced and built on with continuing professional development.
Although there is clear evidence of inequality in many health outcomes, there is little concrete evidence yet known about how the wellness of people with autism compares with that of the general population. I hope the new framework will explicitly cover primary and community health as well as acute healthcare. Primary and community health is where much of the early interaction with patients and the wider population takes place. It could not be more important that our GPs and community healthcare staff understand the particular issues faced by patients with autism and their families, and how they should respond to them.
However, I hope the framework will go slightly further than that. I am sure that you, Dame Cheryl, might have wished to raise this issue were you not chairing the debate: the need for a GP autism register, as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, with a relatively easy and simple code so that people’s progression through primary healthcare pathways and on to an acute healthcare or a mental health setting can be tracked and we can have a better understanding of the impact of autism and learning disability on wellness and the particular challenges and experiences of people with autism.
Dr Whitford
The hon. Gentleman touched on poverty earlier. The learning disability employment gap is over 90%; if we actually want to look at the wellness of people with learning or communication difficulties, we as a society must include them, rather than parking them on the side and wasting their talents.
Mike Wood
The hon. Lady is right, and if I may give a quick plug, the all-party parliamentary group has done some important work with the National Autistic Society on precisely the issue of autism, employment and education. I understand it will be published shortly and I hope it provides a focus for a future debate.
Hannah Bardell
Following on from that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that people with autism and additional support needs have a huge contribution to make to our economy and society? As someone who has had a number of people on work experience, they have helped me to see the world in a different way. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have seen “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time”; when I went to see that in the west end, it was a turning point for me in understanding the world and a little window into how people with autism see it.
Mike Wood
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That enormous employment gap is a tragedy in terms of not only the lost opportunities for those people directly affected, but the wasted opportunities for the many employers who could be benefiting from the skills of people with autism and other learning disabilities, and for wider society, which is losing the contributions that they can make.
Finally, I will touch quickly on the issue of mental health. Autism is not a mental illness, but we know that people with autism are much more likely to be affected by many mental illnesses, particularly anxiety-related illnesses, than the general population. We need to ensure that the new framework is properly embedded across mental healthcare as well as physical healthcare, so that our mental health services can ensure that people with autism get the proper services they need. Far too often, people with autism find not only that their condition means their mental health problems are not properly diagnosed at an early stage, but that, if diagnosed, their condition can interfere with their receiving the appropriate treatment in a way that might be expected elsewhere.
We must ensure that autism is one of the four clinical priorities right across the healthcare system and that the training our healthcare professionals receive reflects that. Only then can we start to address the healthcare inequalities that we see in this country and, hopefully, try to ensure that there are fewer repeats of the terrible stories we have heard this afternoon.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I think that, without compromising the objectivity of the Chair, I should probably have put on record at the beginning of this sitting that I currently chair the all-party parliamentary group on autism, in case people have not gathered that by this stage. Secondly, I apologise for the temperature in this room, which is below what I would consider comfortable standards. We have made inquiries and unfortunately we cannot adjust the temperature unless the room is vacated and the engineers come in to look at the equipment. I apologise for that, but, unusually, if anybody wants to put on their coats, they are welcome to. I understand that some people are feeling very cold in this environment and I can only apologise.
Jared O'Mara (Sheffield, Hallam) (Ind)
It is interesting that you mention the temperature, Dame Cheryl, because I am the first autistic MP and a symptom of my autism is that I prefer the cold and get really irritated and anxious when it gets just above body temperature. This is perfect for me—I am wearing a T-shirt.
Jared O'Mara
Yes. This is one of those circumstances where Parliament has worked out in my favour, because so far my autism has not been taken into account by Parliament.
I have asked for adjustments from the Speaker’s Office so that I can comfortably speak more in the Chamber, because with things such as shouting, when everyone is heckling, the aggression and the loud noises mean I cannot cope. I have only been to Prime Minister’s questions once because of all the shouting. A Conservative MP, who I believe was the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), was not wearing a tie, and that adjustment was made in part with reference to me, because of my cerebral palsy. Much like Oliver, I have anxiety, cerebral palsy and autism—Oliver had those three—and on top of that I have depression.
There is something called comorbidity, which means that if someone has one disability, they are likely to get another. In the autism strategy of 2009 and its update for 2014, I cannot find the word comorbidity. It is a word that needs to be in the lexicon of Government and politics, the NHS and education. The same can be said for intersectionality, which is basically about the negative symbiosis between different marginalised groups and different factors. We need to look at that, and at how being disabled means that someone is more likely to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, including by being on benefits, unemployed or in prison.
Going off on tangents is also a quirk of my autism—I was talking about wearing a tie in Parliament and how the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East was not wearing one. One adjustment that Mr Speaker kindly made was that I should not have to wear a tie, because my cerebral palsy and the co-ordination difficulties that I have with my autism mean that I cannot do a tie. Also, wearing a clipper tie will irritate the skin around my neck. The hon. Gentleman was not wearing a tie the first time I was at Prime Minister’s questions, and several Labour MPs behind me shouted at him, “Wear a tie, you scruff.” Imagine how much that hurt me. I turned around and looked at them and shook my head, but I may as well have been invisible.
This is not only about my treatment by Parliament but by the Labour party; for those who think Parliament has not made many adjustments or treated me right, Labour is another thing entirely. I am not talking about Labour as a whole. I am talking about the leadership and the people who run it, and the people who run the application process. I was not listened to or asked how they could help me. They made the sum total of one adjustment for me, which was to give me an office near the Chamber.
However, I am not here to talk about me. I am here to talk about Oliver. Some people say that people with autism do not have the capacity for empathy, including Simon Baron-Cohen—the cousin of the actor who played Borat—who came up with the empathising-systemising theory. That does not resonate with me, because I can systemise and empathise, and I want to be an autistic person who gives everybody a lesson in empathy. Think about Oliver. That is not just a name, but it is good that we give him a name, because disabled people are so often treated as statistics on a balance sheet—“Can we afford to spend this money on disabled people?” The key word in “disabled people” is “people”. We are people, with names.
Let us take a moment to think about Oliver. Imagine what it would have been like for him, being given that medication and being bullied and being scared, and his anxiety going through the roof. He did not know what was happening. He looked and saw his mum and dad, who were in a state, and the doctors would not listen to them. He says, “Mum and dad, help me. Help me.” Just think about what that would be like. [Interruption.] No. I am autistic. Do not do that.
Think about Oliver’s mum and dad. They have lost their son. That could have been my mum and dad. A year ago, I tried to hang myself in a hotel over the road, because people were bullying me over things that I did not understand when I was 20 or 22. They made false accusations of sexism and homophobia. They did not listen to the interviews I had done. They did not listen to me talk about how I am an intersectional feminist and about equality. They did not listen to me when I said that my local pub, where I have been going all the time for 12 years, is a gay bar.
I used homophobic words, but they were the words of the time; they were on the Eminem record that I listened to at the time. It was before November 2003— [Interruption.]
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Order. Please try to keep on the subject of the petition.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
You are giving a very powerful testimony, but I hope that you may try to confine your remarks to the subject of the petition in hand. That would be helpful to me in the Chair. Thank you.
Jared O'Mara
I mentioned that I go off on tangents; this is an example. Basically, there is a tendency in type 1 autistic people to mimic both the world around them and their peers, to try to fit in and not get bullied. That is what I was doing, and my bullying is an example of how people with autism are misunderstood and not listened to. It has huge parallels with what happened to Oliver and with the autistic people who my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) says have committed suicide.
I managed to stop myself—Lord knows how. It was probably because I thought of my mum and my sister and my niece and my nephew and my dad. That is probably what anchored me and brought me down off that chair—well, that and the fact that I could not climb it properly because of my cerebral palsy. That sounds like a joke, and sometimes we have to laugh at our disabilities, because it is all we have. I mastered humour and making my friends laugh, because that makes people like me. Sometimes people have to do that, because of all the bullying they get over their autism and all the misunderstandings, like those Oliver went through. Sometimes all you can do is laugh.
However, I hope that, at this juncture, people do not laugh but take a moment to reflect on what it is like for Oliver’s parents, and what it was like for Oliver at the time his life ended. I thank Oliver’s parents for bringing the petition to the Chamber, and I thank every Member here. I am being non-partisan—I am an independent Member—and I ask Members to please show the video of the debate and give copies of their speeches to their colleagues in their respective parties. I am just riffing, as Members can tell, but by showing their colleagues the video on parliamentlive.tv and giving them copies of their speeches, they can spread the word that people with autism are being misunderstood.
One fifth of the UK population are in the disability community, and a quarter of people will have mental health disabilities at some point during their lives. We are not being listened to and we are not being understood. Our parents are not being listened to. The respective experts in clinical psychology and psychiatry and medicine are not being listened to. It is time that we were listened to and what we want acted on.
It is time that the laws that are already in place, such as the autism strategy, the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and disability discrimination law, are acted on. Let us have full legal aid, and let us expand the definition of corporate manslaughter, because I believe that what happened to Oliver was corporate manslaughter, whether that fits with its definition in law or not.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a real honour to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Jared O'Mara), who defeated a colleague of mine at the last election. It is very powerful to hear from somebody who is directly affected. However, it is also a reminder to us all how difficult it is for an institution such as Parliament to be truly inclusive and to make sure that everybody who lives in this country has their voice heard.
I pay tribute to Oliver’s family, and I echo the cross-party agreement on this issue. I am the MP for their neighbouring constituency of Bath, and since Oliver was a member of Team Bath, I feel that he is very much part of the Bath family. I say to his family: your campaign will become my campaign.
There are often shocking misunderstandings or misconceptions about people who suffer from autistic spectrum disorder—ASD—or mental ill health, and I find that the two are mixed up in an alarming way. ASD is a learning disability, not mental ill health, and it is important that we separate the two. Mental ill health might be an additional diagnosis, and many people with ASD also suffer mental ill health, but they are not the same. Mental ill health is often a consequence of misunderstanding and isolation, and can be avoided if a person with autism is diagnosed early and treated accordingly. Early diagnosis is therefore crucial to addressing not only the issue itself but the mental ill health that might be a consequence of it. All too often, even once people have an ASD diagnosis, mental illness can be overlooked. The National Autistic Society estimates that mental illness is far more common in people with autism than in the general population.
The debate is focused on training for health professionals to diagnose and understand autism better. So far, the Government have done very little on that. The petition was created by Paula, who is here today, and we have heard powerful testimony about her son, Oliver. I do not need to go over all the details of that, but I understand entirely how the inquest’s outcome must have been devastating the family. Clearly, something went awry. Our laws and regulations are not fully clear about the proper training that should be given, but Paula is in the petition. Her son could possibly still have been here with us. All of us here are truly sorry, and we need to do something about it.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I rise as the Member of Parliament for Bristol North West, which contains Southmead Hospital: it was part of Oliver’s story, from which lessons need to be learned. Does the hon. Lady agree that the important point here is that we evidently have strong cross-party consensus; that we must now focus our efforts not just on debate and consultation but on achieving real change in the health service and our public services generally and right across our country; and that today’s debate gives us the impetus to do that?
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have said at another occasion today that the word “Parliament” comes from the French word “parler”, which means to talk, but we are also here to take action, so we must stop talking and take action. The issue of mandatory training is something that we can fix or determine here, and I very much hope that the Government will take that on board.
The urgent need for better training on autism and learning disability and the complications of the condition could not be shown more starkly than by the failings in Oliver’s case. In February, the charity Mencap launched the “Treat me well” campaign, which is aimed at transforming how the NHS treats people with a learning disability in hospital. In particular, women with a learning disability suffer disproportionately from health inequalities. We have heard the statistics today; they die on average 29 years before women in the general population, and men with a learning disability die on average 23 years before those in the general male population. That cannot be overlooked. We have also heard these figures today, but that does not matter—it will do no harm to repeat them: a YouGov survey conducted in 2017 found that nearly one quarter of the health professionals surveyed had never attended any training on learning disability, and two thirds wanted to have more training, so what are we waiting for?
Any illness or disorder that is either misdiagnosed or diagnosed late leads to far greater problems down the line. Early intervention depends on early diagnosis, and early diagnosis on training of those who come into contact with the sufferers. We are calling today for better training of healthcare professionals, which is an obvious start, but why not go even further? Let us look at the settings to which young people are exposed from an early age—namely, nurseries and schools. Given that ASD is so widespread, nursery nurses and teachers should receive at least some basic training to recognise the early warning signs. Far too little is being done. In my constituency of Bath, we have an autism board, but it rarely meets and has not even set up a work plan yet. Clearly, none of this is good enough.
ASD and learning disabilities can be successfully treated to give sufferers a full life. The earlier we diagnose the problem, the better the outcome. Many people with ASD also suffer from mental health problems, often as a consequence of not being diagnosed early enough. Let us end this tragedy. I fully support the recommendations that have been made, and I hope that we have the cross-party consensus to really do something quickly.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
We now move to the Front-Bench spokesmen, and it gives me great pleasure to call Hannah Bardell.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Cheryl. I know that other hon. Members have said this, but the work that you have done in this area, and the work of others in this Parliament, is hugely important, and its importance has never been more obvious than today. I have no direct experience other than the constituency cases that I mentioned earlier, but the level of emotion and empathy in the Chamber today is raw. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad and consular services and assistance, I have recently taken evidence from families who have lost loved ones abroad, albeit in different circumstances. Hearing about the circumstances of Oliver’s death, and knowing that his mother and his family are here to listen to the debate, only highlights the importance of doing something and doing it well. There can be no greater endeavour for a parliamentarian than to right a wrong by taking an experience that has been devastating or traumatic, or resulted in someone’s needless death, and trying to turn that experience into a positive—into change that will mean that others do not suffer in the same way.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) opened the debate with an excellent contribution. He took us through the details, of Oliver’s death, as the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) did, and I have to say that although I had read some of the details, I was not aware of just how devastating and difficult what happened was, how complex Oliver’s needs were and how badly he and his family were let down.
We must be very careful, because we live in a blame culture. We live in a culture in which, when things go wrong, the finger is pointed. We all know that NHS staff, in whatever part of the UK, do their very best, but there have been failings and the lessons must be learned. Oliver’s death cannot be in vain. I therefore hope that the Minister will detail what she plans to do and give Oliver’s family and us all a sense that there will be change. I have no doubt that the UK Government are very much behind the wish to change the system.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) talked about the work being done in her constituency through the Treat Me Right programme and the impact that that has had in north-west London. I want to mention briefly the Beatlie campus in my constituency of Livingston. The Beatlie School sits at the back of my mum’s fence, and the building in which it is housed was my old primary school. When it shut, that was a great trauma for the local community, but it fills me with great pride that it is now a school that supports children with additional support needs: autism and a range of issues. Recently, it was awarded a Gold: Rights Respecting award by UNICEF. Its headteacher, Carol Robbie, and her staff do an incredible job, so I want to pay tribute to them.
The hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) spoke about his experience of being a governor of a school that supports children with additional support needs. Many of the speakers today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), have talked about the need for a tailored but collaborative approach. That is particularly important. In Scotland, we have championed partnership working in many of our local authorities, and we have particularly done so in West Lothian.
The point has been made that it is not just healthcare workers who should be trained but people who will be coming into contact with those with additional support needs, including in relation to autism. That is incredibly important. Whatever area we are talking about, whether it is housing, welfare or whatever, staff need to have proper and appropriate training, as do businesses. The debate has been very much opened up, and we must look at the improvements that need to happen across the board, not just for NHS staff.
The Scottish strategy for autism was published jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in 2011, and our Government in Scotland committed £13.4 million over four years to improve the lives of autistic people and their families and carers. A review was published in 2014, and I will just share some of the findings. There was the development of a menu of interventions, which meant a guide to help autistic people and their families and carers to identify available advice and support, and a mapping exercise, which sought to map out and better co-ordinate local services. That coincided with £35,000 for each of our 32 local authorities to encourage local and national organisations to develop projects to improve the delivery of local autism services. In my constituency, a number of organisations have benefited from that.
[Ian Austin in the Chair]
In 2015, the strategy was refreshed and reframed into an outcomes approach, and it has had a significant impact on each local authority in Scotland and their services. We are not perfect, but we have done a significant amount and we are absolutely dedicated to ensuring that whatever an individual’s needs are, they are properly catered for.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Jared O'Mara). It is hard to know how to respond to his speech, because it was so powerful and so necessary. He spoke not only about autism and his needs, but the way that this place is structured. We have said it many times—I will never forget that feeling of anxiety the first time I sat in Prime Minister’s questions. It was so alien. I witnessed such boorish and unbelievable behaviour—I have never seen anything like it in my life. It is not a natural environment for anybody. It fills me with great sadness that we have not been able to move on and that he still feels that he cannot attend Prime Minister’s questions. I am glad that some reasonable adjustments have been made. The brave and direct way that he spoke about his experiences will be shared, and I give him my commitment that I will share it on social media and beyond, because I think it is incredibly important. If we are going to be truly diverse in this Parliament and make better decisions for the people across these islands, it is vital that we have Members with different needs, abilities and perspectives, and the hon. Gentleman has epitomised that.
I cannot imagine what Oliver’s family’s experience has been like. What Paula and her family have done takes incredible bravery. I wish them well with their campaign, which we will carry in our hearts. I hope we will all play our part, and that the Minister will give Oliver’s family positive words and actions, to ensure that nobody ever again goes through the experience that he and his family did.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Austin, which I think is a first for you and me. I pay tribute to Dame Cheryl—who was in the Chair until a few moments ago—for her work in this House on autism. I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing forward this debate. It is sometimes important that the Petitions Committee does not wait for 100,000 signatures, but is prepared to move earlier on an important topic. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for his excellent speech.
I know people were anxious about this debate, because it coincides with the statement from the Prime Minister on the October EU summit, but we have heard from a number of hon. Members. There were interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Lyn Brown), Hartlepool (Mike Hill), Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and Bristol North West (Darren Jones), and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), Dudley South (Mike Wood) and Bath (Wera Hobhouse), and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Jared O'Mara), who spoke very movingly. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). There were concerns about the clash in timing, which was really unfortunate.
Like everyone else who has spoken, I congratulate Oliver’s parents, particularly his mother, Paula McGowan, on their persistence in ensuring that Oliver’s case was brought to our attention through the e-petition, which now has 51,351 signatures, according to the latest figure I have seen. She has raised the vital issue of how we treat people with autism and learning disabilities in our health and care services.
The e-petition, which calls for the introduction of mandatory training on autism and learning disability for healthcare professionals, states:
“One in four healthcare professionals has never had training on learning disability or autism. This is unacceptable. Two thirds want more training, and one in three think a lack of Government leadership is contributing to the problem of avoidable deaths. The Government must ensure all healthcare professionals get mandatory training to address the huge health inequalities facing people with autism and a learning disability.”
The Government response says:
“Everyone has the right to high quality, safe health care so it is crucial that all health workers are given the skills and education to confidently deliver care that meets the needs of all their patients. This is a priority for the Government.”
If this is a priority, let us end this debate by discussing the action that we need to see.
Some 10 years ago, Mencap published the campaign report “Death by indifference” in response to the ongoing poor treatment and care in the NHS of people with a learning disability, and their premature and avoidable deaths. One of the main contentions in that report is that diagnostic overshadowing is a key barrier to people with a learning disability getting equal treatment. Diagnostic overshadowing is when doctors make dangerously faulty assumptions about people with a learning disability, revealing an overall lack of training, skills and under- standing. They may wrongly believe that a presenting problem is a feature of someone’s learning disability and that not much can be done about it, which can often lead to the wrong diagnosis of a medical condition that needs treatment. That report came out 10 years ago.
In its report, the former Disability Rights Commission called for “improved staff training” explicitly to reduce the risk of diagnostic overshadowing and unequal treatment.“Death by indifference” led in 2008 to the report “Healthcare for all”, an inquiry into healthcare for people with learning disabilities. Its first recommendation was that:
“Those with responsibility for the provision and regulation of undergraduate and postgraduate clinical training, must ensure that curricula include mandatory training in learning disabilities. It should be competence-based and involve people with learning disabilities and their carers in providing training.”
That was 10 years ago, but Oliver’s case underlines the degree to which people with learning disabilities and autism still do not get the healthcare treatment that they should expect from any civilised, compassionate society.
On a slightly different note—it is all of a piece—last week, I raised in the House the case of Bethany, a young autistic woman who is being held in seclusion in a private hospital, in a locked, cell-like room and fed through a hatch. We have heard too frequently in recent months of more cases showing the mistreatment, neglect and abuse of people with learning disabilities and autism.
Oliver’s tragic case typifies cases in which people with learning disabilities have died avoidably in healthcare settings. He was a young man with a full life expectancy, who had overcome so many challenges to excel as a footballer and an athlete. He inspired and enriched everyone he met, but he was let down repeatedly, because clinicians simply did not understand the nature of his autism.
Oliver’s death was the result of a catalogue of failures and communications that were not adapted to his needs. Repeated warnings that Oliver was not to be given antipsychotic medication were ignored with fatal consequences. The parallels between Oliver’s case and those reported 10 years ago in “Death by indifference” show just how little progress has been made in giving clinicians the right training about people with learning disabilities and autism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned, Public Health England’s 2016 survey found that only 17% of localities reported having an autism training plan across all health and care staff, while 10% reported having no plan in place.
Oliver’s case was included in the learning disabilities mortality review, which revealed scandalous health inequalities between those with autism and learning disabilities, and those without those conditions. Want of better clinical training causes those scandalous health inequalities. Men and women with autism, a learning disability or both simply should not die 20 or 30 years before those without either condition. That report was published on the morning of the local election results, when attention was inevitably directed elsewhere, which looked like an attempt to bury the findings, causing even more distress to the families of those who had died avoidably. In the words of Dr Sara Ryan, the mother of Connor Sparrowhawk, who tragically lost his life as a result of the negligence of Southern Health, the NHS trust charged with caring for him, it made it seem that the lives of their relatives “simply don’t count.”
As with earlier reports, the cases reported in the learning disabilities mortality review reinforce just how much more Government, and our health and care system, need to do to give people with autism and learning disabilities the good quality healthcare and social care that they ought to expect as a right, and to which they are entitled in law. The lack of training given to clinicians played a pivotal role in Oliver’s death and the deaths of many other people whose cases were included in that review.
As we have been reminded, almost one quarter of clinicians surveyed subsequently by Mencap revealed that they had never attended any training specifically on learning disability. More than half of clinicians would have welcomed more on-the-job training to enable them to provide better support. We have an NHS workforce that would welcome the training and a Government response that says that giving the skills and education to healthcare staff is a priority, so we now need to inject some urgency into moving forward.
Oliver’s case, the case of Connor Sparrowhawk and the cases of 1,200 people with learning disabilities who die an early death each year make that an urgent task. We need swift action, not further consultations. We need a culture change. Doctors are the decision makers and they must own the development of the training in autism and learning disability.
I hope the Minister will reflect on the debate and treat the introduction of mandatory training as an urgent priority. Can she tell us the Government’s timetable for implementing mandatory training following the close of the current consultation? What progress is being made against the recommendations of the learning disability mortality review, particularly the introduction of a named healthcare co-ordinator and the plans to help providers to make reasonable adjustments?
In the last 10 years, we have had reports, inquiries and reviews on the serious matters we have discussed in the debate. Now is the time for action to develop the training that clinicians and other staff working in health and care need. Now is the time for clinicians to own the culture change that would bring about what we all want to see—the Oliver McGowan mandatory training.
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, and that of your predecessor, Dame Cheryl, who has done more to further the cause of people with autism than any other Member of Parliament. I put on record my thanks to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. There have been some impressive and high-quality contributions. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for bringing the case before us and the Petitions Committee for permitting the case to be brought. I also thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Jared O'Mara) for his testimony, although he is no longer here. I am sure we all agree that it was incredibly powerful, extremely important and exceptionally brave.
It is hard to hear the story of Oliver McGowan, which inspired the debate and the petition that triggered it. I am the mum of a teenage boy a bit younger than Oliver, so I find it heartbreaking to even think about what Paula and her family have been through. I have been in this role for nine months, and one of the great honours of the job is being able to speak to some incredible, awe-inspiring people, but surely the most amazing of them are the mothers who have turned the unthinkable heartbreak and anger at the loss of a child into a crusade for change.
Dr Sara Ryan, who has already been mentioned, whose son Connor Sparrowhawk drowned in a bath while under the care of Southern Health, is the most remarkable campaigner for the way that we support adults and children with learning disabilities. Another example is the incredible Paula McGowan, Oliver’s mum, who I met last month. To say that I feel humbled by her story is a massive understatement. The way that she has been fuelled by the unspeakable tragedy of Oliver’s death to fight, to battle and to campaign to ensure that other children and parents do not have the same experience is incredibly brave and courageous. She is nothing short of an inspiration, and she inspires me to strive to tackle the inequalities that people with autism and with learning disabilities face and to do my best to prevent further avoidable tragic loss of life.
The health inequalities between people with learning disabilities and autism and the general population are well understood—virtually every hon. Member present has mentioned them. In recent years, there have been ongoing efforts to address them, but the shameful case of Winterbourne View Hospital is an example of how things have not worked.
It is a sad fact that it takes an avoidable tragedy to spur the action that we want. Since then, significant programmes of activity have been devoted to tackling the inequality that has blighted the experiences of people with learning disabilities in society—inequality is not confined to health and social care. That activity is not only about reducing the number of deaths that may have been preventable, but about improving people’s genuine experiences of care, reducing the use of restrictive interventions, increasing health and wellbeing, and ensuring that people are not hospitalised when they can be better supported in the community.
The existence of the learning disability mortality review programme—LeDeR—testifies to our commitment to reduce the number of preventable deaths among people with a learning disability. LeDeR is focused on learning disability, but has important lessons that relate to the care of autistic people. The programme, led by the Norah Fry centre at the University of Bristol, was introduced to ensure that local evidence-based action is taken to improve support for people with a learning disability. The result is that commissioners are focusing their attention on their local mortality rates and the reasons for them, and are highlighting the further national action that is needed. We must learn from those deaths quickly and translate that learning into effective remedial action that prevents any repetition.
In May, the University of Bristol published the second annual LeDeR report, which showed that 13 deaths had involved circumstances where an individual’s health had been adversely affected by entirely avoidable external factors. The report also found that, based on the examples that were reviewed, the median age of death is 23 years younger than the general population for men and 29 years younger for women. It makes for shocking and chilling reading. LeDeR is ongoing, so many reviews are still to come. Since then, there has been significant action to increase the number of reviews undertaken, including NHS England investing an additional £1.4 million in support of them. Hon. Members from across the House will feel, as I do, that the report is a stark message that we need to do much more to ensure that people with a learning disability receive the best quality care.
In the Government’s response to the LeDeR report, which we published on 12 September, we set out a clear action plan to make progress against each of its national recommendations. The key theme is that of facilitating better care for people with a learning disability by sharing information on their needs and by making reasonable adjustments to improve access and the responsiveness of services to meet those needs. It highlighted some actions that I am glad to say were already well under way, as well as many new actions.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister has used the word “action”. If we had been able to discuss the Government’s response to the LeDeR report, which came out the day before the conference recess, I would have said to her that there is very little action in it. The whole point of the cross-party feeling of the debate is that we want action. There are an awful lot of consultations in the response but, as I highlighted in my speech, we have had 10 years of reviews, starting with the report that came out 10 years ago. The Minister used the word “action”—can we not just get on with some?
Caroline Dinenage
We have accepted every single recommendation in the LeDeR report, and the only reason we are consulting on the recommendations about training is that we have to do that to introduce legislation and change the regulations. We need to do that properly and ensure that we take on board the experiences of people from a wide range of backgrounds so that it actually works. Training is already in the guidelines for healthcare professionals, but the hon. Lady and many other hon. Members have said that it is simply not happening. This is not about action for the sake of it or to say that we have ticked a box to make it happen, but about meaningful action that will save lives. That is why I want to get it right. I am not going to hang around; it will be done to a timescale, which I will explain more about in a moment.
An example of action is that NHS England is working with NHS Digital to add a reasonable adjustment flag to digital care records to indicate the potential adjustments that people with a learning disability may require. The flag will be available to all organisations that provide care. It will support improved communication between patients, their carers and clinicians and lead to more personalised, safer patient care and better outcomes. That capability is being developed for piloting in the NHS summary care records application this summer. We are also exploring with NHS England and NHS Digital the potential for a comparable autism flag.
We have also commissioned Oxford Brookes University to look into best practice in co-ordinating the support for people with a learning disability and a long-term condition. Hon. Members have raised the difficulties that autistic people and people with learning difficulties experience in communicating their needs to health professionals, and also highlighted the importance of hospital passports in overcoming these difficulties and ensuring that their hospital stays are safer and more comfortable. However, I know that Oliver had such a passport and it was not read, so that needs to be taken into consideration as well.
As part of our governance arrangements for the autism strategy, we have set up a task and finish group on health, care and wellbeing, which is looking at barriers to care. We will ask it to consider how we can best disseminate tools such as the hospital passport, to ensure that patients receive effective, personalised care.
Of the new actions, the one that most concerns us today is the commitment to consult on mandatory training. I believe that the steps we are taking will address the shameful inequalities that people with learning disabilities continue to experience. Everybody has the right to receive effective, compassionate and dignified care, and having a learning disability or autism should not be a bar to that.
I am absolutely committed to ensuring that all staff have the skills that they need, whether for learning disability or autism, to deliver excellent and compassionate care. We are already taking forward actions in this area, which I will set out before moving on to discuss mandatory training.
We have supported the development of the learning disability core skills education and training framework, which sets out three tiers of knowledge and skills in relation to learning disability. We are also working towards the development of an autism core skills and competency framework for health and care staff, and for staff in organisations with public-facing responsibilities.
In addition to the existing criteria for professional regulation and registration, there are also existing health and social care regulations that are designed to ensure staff have had appropriate training. However, it is clear from the tragic deaths of Oliver and the many, many like him that that is not enough; we need to go further. One of the recommendations in the LeDeR report echoes the petition in saying that there should be mandatory learning disability training for all health and care staff.
We welcome that recommendation and we have made a commitment to consult formally on it, and we will conclude the consultation by the end of March. I can also confirm that we will include autism within this consultation. My aim is not to mess around with this work, as I have already articulated; the Government’s plans will be published by the summer and regulations could be introduced by the end of 2019. A formal consultation is essential if we are going to change regulations, which is one of the routes by which we can ensure that training is absolutely mandatory.
I appreciate that several hon. Members have asked me specific questions about all sorts of logistical issues, what the content of the training should be and how it might be different for different staff groups. Of course those are all the sorts of issues that we will consult on. We need to canvass the widest possible range of opinions and we clearly are not in a position now to guess the outcome of the consultation. If it was up to me, I would want to embed this training in initial training through all the professional bodies, royal colleges and training providers, having it at all levels of health and social care, so that anybody who has any role in a health and care setting would be mandated to receive some level of this training, obviously with different levels of training for people who work in reception and for those who are medical staff.
One of the key elements of the recommendations in the LeDeR report is that people with learning disabilities should be involved in the training. We will work with people with learning disabilities and autism, and with the groups that represent them, such as Mencap, in shaping the consultation and identifying the key questions that we have to ask. I am absolutely thrilled to say that Paula McGowan has agreed to help us with this.
The petition also refers to mandatory autism training. Of course, LeDeR looks at the deaths of people with learning disability rather than autism, but when it comes to inequalities and the patient experience there are clear parallels between the experiences of both groups and in the sort of reasonable adjustments that might be made to support both groups. It would be a missed opportunity if we did not consider in our consultation the training requirements of staff to better support autistic people as well those with learning disabilities.
Our response to LeDeR and the implementation of Building the Right Support are part of wider efforts to tackle inequality for those with learning disabilities and autism. I will briefly highlight three of these efforts in particular that have great potential. First, there is quality checkers. NHS England is developing toolkits for GP services and mental health in-patient services. These will support people with a learning disability to act as quality checkers, to examine services from their perspective and to have a dialogue with providers and commissioners on what needs to improve.
Secondly, and so importantly, there is stopping the over-medication of people with a learning disability, autism, or both, which is known as STOMP. This national programme brings together multiple organisations in the health and care field, with a common purpose to stop the over-medication with psychotropic medicines of people with a learning disability, autism or both.
Finally, commissioning guidance on autism services, and an accompanying best practice toolkit for local health and care commissioners, are due to be developed shortly and are expected to be available by next spring.
As we develop the consultation on mandatory training, it is particularly helpful to hear these issues and concerns, which hon. Members and their constituents want to see being addressed. We will reflect on, and listen to, those issues and concerns in our consultation. The consultation document will be issued in the new year, giving us sufficient time to conclude the formal consultation period by the end of March, and of course I am extremely happy to discuss with any hon. Member, or any lord in the other place, any particular issue that they would like to see reflected and indeed tackled by the consultation at any time, either before or during the consultation.
Barbara Keeley
I asked the Minister earlier whether she could give an outline of the timetable after the consultation. When does she believe that we will see regulations to make this training mandatory?
Caroline Dinenage
I believe I have already answered that question. I said that I would like the Government plans to be published by the summer and the regulations to be amended by the end of the year.
Caroline Dinenage
I am afraid that I am not the scheduler, but that would be my aspiration as the Minister. Obviously, I do not have the timing for the Government, the Chambers and what have you, but that is definitely my aspiration.
It is absolutely vital that we do everything in our power to get this matter right. We owe it to Oliver and to the many, many young people with autism or learning disabilities whose lives have been tragically shortened. We owe it to Paula and Tom, and to the many parents and family members who have suffered unimaginable grief. We owe it to ourselves—a country should be judged on how it cares for its most vulnerable and on this, we must not be found wanting.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank all hon. Members for their excellent contributions today; both the speeches and the interventions have been of a very high quality and very thoughtful. Of course, they have also widened the debate beyond just the mandatory training issues to how people with autism and learning disabilities are treated in general. I thought the points about the employment gap in particular from the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) were very telling.
I suppose what struck me when I saw Paula’s original statement was the point where she urged staff not to always reach for the pharmaceutical approach. Important though mandatory training will be, and it is vital that we achieve it, I also think that training takes us only so far. I think that staff throughout the national health service need to have the time, the space and the confidence to treat people as individuals and hear what they are actually saying to them. That is a big transformation and a big challenge for everyone in public services, and I hope that it is something that we can try to work towards.
In conclusion, on behalf of all Members, I pay tribute once again to Oliver’s mum, Paula, for the very, very powerful campaign that she has waged. I think we can all agree that the final outcome from this process that we would like to see is the Oliver McGowan mandatory training being applied as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 221033 relating to autism and learning disability training for healthcare professionals.
Written Statements
Call-out Order: Air Policing Operations
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
Changes made by the Defence Reform Act 2014 allow reservists to be called out under section 56(1B) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is necessary or desirable to use members of a reserve force for any purpose for which members of the regular services may be used. Reservists called out under this power may be required to serve for a period of up to 12 months.
A new order has been made under section 56(1B) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to be called into permanent service in support of the United Kingdom’s contribution to air policing operations.
With the changing international strategic threat, I consider there is a requirement for an order that enables the mobilisation of reservists to support tasks which provide for, or contribute to UK air security and policing, including associated strategic tasks. This order also provides for related activity elsewhere in the world, including, for example, the protection of the UK’s overseas territories, providing force protection for air assets, in so far as the activity provides for, or contributes, to the continued security of the UK, its overseas territories, service people and assets.
The order takes effect from the beginning of 1 November 2018 and shall cease to have effect at the end of 29 September 2019, making it coterminous with other standing call-out orders.
For operations that fall outside the scope of these orders, for example military aid to the civil authorities, or warfighting, or for operations which are likely to involve a large number of reservists, I would expect to make separate call-out orders.
[HCWS1023]
Cross-Border Access: Electronic Access in Criminal Matters
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
Until the UK leaves it remains a full member of the European Union with all the rights and responsibilities this entails. The Government will continue to consider the application of the UK’s right to opt-in to, or opt-out of, forthcoming EU legislation in the area of justice and home affairs on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting our civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration.
The Government have decided not to opt-in to the proposal of the European Parliament and the Council on European production orders and European preservation orders for cross-border access to electronic evidence in criminal matters.
Law enforcement access to data held by service providers is an important issue and we support the underlying objective of improving cross-border access to electronic evidence. However, from the start of discussions on this issue, we have not supported the need for new EU legislation. That is because it is not clear that new EU legislation will be a practical and effective way to address the global issue of providing lawful access to data held anywhere in the world.
[HCWS1024]
House of Lords
Youth Crime: London
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hussein-Ece
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce youth crime in London.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Serious Violence Strategy sets out our response to tackling serious violence, including recent increases in knife crime, gun crime and homicide. The strategy emphasises early intervention and prevention to stop young people getting involved in violence in the first place. On 2 October, the Home Secretary announced further measures, including a £200 million youth endowment fund that will support children and young people to prevent their involvement in violence and crime.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I thank the Minister for that response. The alarming rise in knife crime and the number of deaths by stabbing of young people in London prompted me to put this Question down, on behalf of those of us who have boys and are terrified about whether they will come home in one piece. The streets are not safe any more for young people. According to figures, knife crime has gone up by 15% in the past year in London, with 91 killings. That means an average of 40 knife crimes per day. Will sufficient police resources be put in place to tackle this, as well as a public health approach, which the Youth Violence Commission has recommended and which worked so well in Glasgow? It was the knife crime capital of western Europe but has seen a decline following a public health approach. Will the Government put proper resources in place to tackle this?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I mentioned in my Answer to the noble Baroness’s original Question the £200 million youth endowment fund. In addition, and given that the noble Baroness is talking about London—this does, in many ways, seem to be a particular problem for London—in July, the Home Secretary doubled the early intervention youth fund to £22 million. Through the trusted relationships fund, we are supporting nine projects that will support children vulnerable to county lines criminal exploitation. Four of these are based in London and will receive a total of £4.8 million. Further, £175,000 has been provided to support Redthread to expand work in London hospitals that will help victims of violent crime avoid or withdraw from gang activity, and £150,000 to support Safer London in its work to deliver young people’s advocates for young women in gangs and to reduce knife crime.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
Is the Minister aware that, since 2012, about 30 youth centres in London have closed? While this might not wholly explain the worrying rise in violence, it must have been a contributory factor. Will my noble friend tell the House whether the Government have any plans to substitute that loss?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend will of course know that youth provision is a decision for local authorities and how they allocate funds.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Before the House gets totally fed up with me, I will tell noble Lords that the Government have given £40 million, and £40 million has come from the Big Lottery Fund, for youth provision and social action. We continue to fund the growth of the very successful National Citizens Service, and £700,000 has gone into the Delivering Differently for Young People programme.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests. There has been a cut to policing in real terms since 2010-11. In London, as the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, mentioned, 81 youth centres have closed, 800 full-time youth workers are no longer there and there has been a £39 million cut in youth services in the capital since 2011. Does the Minister not accept that these spending reductions have a direct effect on the ability of the police and local authorities to tackle knife crime?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we have talked a lot in this place about police funding. It is important to note that public investment in policing has grown by over £1 billion from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion in 2018-19, including investment in counterterrorism policing, local policing and funding for national programmes. There are other funding streams, including the £175 million police transformation fund and special grants.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, in view of the IDPC report published today, which shows huge increases in the use of drugs across the globe despite harsh punishments and criminalisation, will the Minister seriously consider decriminalising the possession and use of drugs, as Portugal did very successfully more than 20 years ago? That would massively reduce youth crime and is probably the quickest and best way of doing that. It would also increase children’s recovery from drug use and enhance their ability to return to education and work.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness will know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has no intention of decriminalising drugs, but intends to get a better understanding of who drug users are, what they take, how often they take it and so much more. He is launching a review into the market for legal drugs.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Safer London, as mentioned by the Minister. Does she recognise what is behind the following tweet from a young person today:
“We’re desperate to see police patrols. Friendly neighbourhood officers who know the community. All we now get is aggressive cops jumping out of bully vans”?
Does the Minister realise the impact of the loss of community policing and local intelligence both on young people’s fear, which often leads to their carrying knives, and on stop and search?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work that the police do. Of course, the PCC decides how to allocate funding to the various types of policing mentioned by the noble Baroness. I also point out the initiative to reduce moped crime, which noble Lords were so concerned about. There has been a 32.6% fall in that type of crime. That is not to undermine exactly what noble Lords are saying, which is that certain types of crime are increasing, but the police are working to reduce crime in local areas in the way that it presents itself.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has told us about a blizzard of initiatives—some worth £150,000, some worth £700,000 and so on—but that does not alter the fact that the totality of services, by which I mean the whole-system approach, which is surely what is needed here, has suffered. We have seen huge reductions in local government funding, in health funding and in policing. How on earth can the Government continue to blame local authorities, police and crime commissioners and everyone else for the fact that it is their policies that are creating this situation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am not in any way seeking to blame local authorities or PCCs; rather I am saying that they have budgets and they can decide what their priorities are for their budget allocations. However, I will say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister recognise the strain under which the police find themselves, particularly in the light of changing crime patterns and of course the terrorist attacks that this country saw last year.
Online Marketplaces: VAT Evasion
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that operators of online marketplaces take all reasonable steps to mitigate VAT evasion.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is the first country in the world to make online marketplaces jointly and severally liable for VAT fraud committed on their platforms. Since 2016, HMRC has received around 43,500 VAT registration applications from non-EU based online sellers, which compares with 1,650 in 2015.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
This issue is of course important to UK high street retailers which are facing intense competition from Amazon. Does my noble friend the Minister share my concern that HMRC estimates that the loss of VAT through evasion by foreign online supply companies is between £600 million and £900 million? However, despite having the powers to do so, HMRC has not frozen any funds, it has not blocked any listings and it has not seized one item of stock from warehouses where goods from overseas suppliers are stored awaiting dispatch the next day.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his commitment and consistency in raising these very important issues which the Government recognise. That is why, for exactly the reasons he has outlined, we were the first country in the world to introduce joint and several liability for market sellers. We have issued more than 3,000 joint and several liability orders since they were introduced and the amount of tax revenue, which is the crucial point raised by my noble friend, is expected to increase to £1 billion over the review period leading up to 2023. However, more needs to be done.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, are Ministers seriously considering any Treasury recommendations to increase the VAT threshold and thereby bring a lot more traders under the rules? Would that not increase the tax take substantially?
Lord Bates
There are other ways of approaching the issue, one of which is to crack down on the loopholes. We have introduced successive initiatives and we have spent some £2 billion for HMRC to cut down on evasion. Next April, we will bring in an important measure to address the point made by my noble friend Lord Leigh. It will require that due diligence is carried out on online marketplaces to ensure that people are actually paying the correct amount of tax. Our emphasis and focus is on closing the gap and ensuring that more people pay the tax that is due rather than looking at the rates.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, despite its expanded powers, HMRC is shockingly poor at collecting VAT from overseas sellers. The number has been 4% of the amount that it is owed, and if I understand the Minister’s numbers, it will not even attempt to get the figure up to 10%. As we go through the Brexit process we run the risk that another 27 countries are going to fall into the same overseas sellers category without the single market and the ECJ to ensure that we can collect VAT from entities that are based elsewhere but selling in the UK. What does he anticipate will be the consequence of that?
Lord Bates
We have to recognise that the UK has the largest online marketplace in the EU. We also need to recognise that beyond the EU, this is a global issue. Most of the goods coming in are actually from outside the EU, and that is why the G20 and OECD base erosion and profit shifting initiatives are so important, as well as moving our tax system on to a digital basis so that we can ensure that digital businesses pay the correct amount of tax due.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Does my noble friend not understand that small retailers are now being required to produce their returns online, although that has been temporarily suspended, while in the meantime their main competition is committing evasion on a substantial scale—never mind the fact that business rates are hugely generous for online businesses? Are Her Majesty’s Government saying that they are not concerned about the loss of the high street? If they are, is it not time that they showed a little more understanding of what faces our shopkeepers up and down the country?
Lord Bates
We sympathise with those people, which is why we have listened to the calls that have been made. We have introduced pioneering joint and several liability for marketplaces and are introducing a due diligence system. While we are working through the G20 and the OECD, we are looking at initiatives that could be considered to solve the problem, such as split payments to ensure that VAT is automatically paid when someone domiciled in the UK makes a transaction.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, the PAC noted that HMRC does not know how many fulfilment houses, or packaging establishments, there are in the UK and is therefore unable to systematically target VAT fraud. Is that right? If so, what will the Government do about it?
Lord Bates
That is right, which is why we require those establishments to register.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend think that Sir Nicholas Clegg may have some spare time to devote to this?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, is this not a problem of HMRC resources? Is it not very difficult now to reverse the cuts that have been made in HMRC over the years? This is a clear example of loss of revenue to the Exchequer and the damage it does to the high street.
Lord Bates
I do not accept the premise that we are reducing the amount of money going into HMRC. Since 2010, as I said earlier, we have spent some £2 billion on closing that loophole. The increased yields which that has brought into the Exchequer are evidence that it is working.
Offshore Patrol Vessels
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to withdraw from service the Batch 1 River-class offshore patrol vessels HMS “Tyne”, “Severn”, “Mersey” and “Clyde”.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, our plans to withdraw the Batch 1 River-class offshore patrol vessels from service have yet to be finalised. Our decision will be informed by the outcome of cross-government discussions to determine our requirement for fisheries protection and compliance of patrols in UK waters following our exit from the EU. HMS “Severn” left service in December 2017 and is held alongside pending these deliberations.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Yesterday was of course the 213th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar—
Lord West of Spithead
A great hurrah! The Secretary of State wrote in a Sunday paper that Nelson would look at the modern Navy with great pride and amazement. I think the amazement would be because he said that the Navy was growing, but it is not. Nelson had 280 frigates and we have 13, so I find that difficult to imagine.
The Minister touched on one area where there is real concern: our exclusive economic zone and territorial seas. We do not have enough assets there. Here is a wonderful opportunity to increase the number of ships available to look after those waters at a very low cost. They could be manned by the RNR and we would achieve something rather than just talking about it. Does he agree?
Earl Howe
I am sure that the noble Lord will acknowledge the extent of the investment devoted to the Royal Navy over the past few years. His point is a good one. The watchword in this context is “flexibility”. The programme to replace the Royal Navy’s offshore patrol vessels is continuing; the Batch 1 vessels will be replaced by the Batch 2 ships as they enter service. It is important that we keep open the possibility of extending the service of and/or keeping in reserve HMS “Clyde” or HMS “Mersey”, for example, to meet any requirements emerging from not only Brexit but other contingencies. That is what we intend to do.
Lord Boyce (CB)
If the patrol vessels are to work in the EEZ, which would be highly desirable, there are of course multifarious parties and agencies that also work there—the Navy, the Border Force, customs, Defra, HMRC and so forth. Which government department has the overall lead on such matters as command and control, training and funding for the activities that will be done in the EEZ?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there are two key requirements to ensure the security of our waters. One is that operations need to be intelligence-led, and the other is that they should be well co-ordinated—the noble and gallant Lord makes an excellent point. In the protection of our borders, the capability to detect and deter vessels and aircraft approaching the UK is just one part of a multilayered approach that the Government take in protecting our country. The Ministry of Defence is just one organisation with a role in this. It is important though to recognise the importance of co-ordination. That is why the permanent Joint Maritime Operations Coordination Centre exists—to deliver a national and international focal point for home waters maritime security and planning. The key is for all agencies to work together in a concerted fashion.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that I have a special interest in this matter? I think I was the Minister who ordered the original 11 River-class minesweepers, of which now apparently four remain. What has happened to the other seven?
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Is this issue part of the defence modernisation programme, which is of course a defence review by another name? The results of that review were promised in June this year. So far, no results have been published. What is the reason for the delay, and when will the results be announced?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Defence Secretary published a Written Ministerial Statement on 19 July, as the noble Lord will be aware. It set out the headline conclusions of the modernising defence programme. I know that noble Lords were slightly disappointed with that Statement. We had hoped that it would be informative and reassuring—we had certainly intended it to be so. It confirmed the direction of travel; it described the work done to date; it set out some headline conclusions. Strictly speaking, the matter of the offshore patrol vessels is not part of that but, as I have explained, it is important to prepare now for the contingencies that may ensue from Brexit.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, how many of these ships will protect our fishing fleet after Brexit at any one time? After all, we are taking back all these waters and presumably clawing back the allocation of catches from the Spanish and everybody else.
Earl Howe
As we speak, the Marine Management Organisation within Defra is making a full assessment of the scale and volume of both sea-based and non-seaboard patrol and surveillance capability required after we leave the EU. This is the key point for us to focus on. The Ministry of Defence and other agencies are tracking this work, but it is important to remember that fisheries protection is multilayered. It is not just the Royal Navy that enforces protection. The Marine Management Organisation relies on a lot of other systems to do that very thing.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I have just flown in from New York, having attended Trafalgar Night on board the “Queen Elizabeth”. It was a most splendid occasion. We entertained the seniors of both the United States Navy and their Marine Corps. They could not have emphasised more their pride in having us as an ally, and everybody in this House can be very proud of the professionalism of all our sailors on board that ship. But when I asked the head of their navy, “Could you remind me how many people you have?”, he said, “363,000”. What was very clear was that they would like us to have greater capability. Do the Government recognise that, to keep this valuable friendship with the Americans, greater capability must be provided by the Government?
EU Referendum: Conduct
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have received reports or information about (1) outside interference, and (2) irregularities, in the conduct of the European Union referendum.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Government have not received any reports or information about any successful outside interference in the European Union referendum. We nevertheless remain vigilant and are committed to defending the UK from all forms of malign state interference in UK democratic processes. The Electoral Commission’s report on the referendum, published in September 2016, stated that the poll was delivered without any major issues and that there was a clear and timely final result.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
I don’t believe it. Everyone knows the irregularities, the fraud and the corruption that took place. The Electoral Commission declared that there was illegal spending by Vote Leave. A whistleblower at Cambridge Analytica showed that Russian money was pumped into the Vote Leave campaign through Aaron Banks and others. This result was obtained by fraud and corruption. The Government have an opportunity to put this right and to satisfy the wishes of at least 700,000 marchers on Saturday by giving the British people the opportunity to decide whether they want to accept the deal, once the terms are known, or to stay in the European Union through a people’s vote.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, the Prime Minister has made her position quite clear on a second referendum: she does not want one. The Electoral Commission is investigating whether Mr Banks was the true source of the loans reported by a referendum campaign in his name and whether any individual facilitated a transaction with a non-qualifying person. But it is important to keep this in perspective. The Atlantic Council and the Oxford Research Institute, both of which have researched this, found that the impact of the Russians on the referendum was at best marginal. One estimate was 0.3% of tweets. I was as disappointed as the noble Lord with the outcome of the referendum, but unlike him I do not believe that it was lost because of what I might call the Zinoviev Twitter.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, this is the Act of Parliament that set out the conditions under which the referendum was fought. This is not a minor matter of rules or regulations; this is the law of the land. Can the noble Lord confirm that the Electoral Commission passed files detailing what had happened in terms of lawbreaking by the leavers during the campaign to the Metropolitan Police several months ago? Can he reassure the House that the police will never halt or delay an investigation because it is claimed that there are political sensitivities?
Lord Young of Cookham
I think it is a malign slur on the police to imply that they would defer to political pressure in that way. It is indeed the case that the responsible person for Vote Leave has been referred to the police, as has Mr Grimes, in relation to false declarations of campaign spending. A number of pro-remain organisations were also fined by the EC for breaking referendum law, including the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the most irregular aspect of the EU referendum was the £9.5 million the Government spent on a deceitful little brochure which went through every letterbox in the land in an attempt to mislead the British people into voting to stay in the EU?
Lord Young of Cookham
The Government followed the precedent of earlier referendums, including those from the 1970s and 1990s, in distributing a leaflet setting out the Government’s view.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the DCMS Committee in the other place has just published alarming evidence of a so-called “Mainstream Network”, which appears to have spent £250,000 to reach 10 million Facebook users, urging them to lobby their MPs to “chuck Chequers”. Could the Minister ask the Electoral Commission to investigate this because it could fall into a pre-election period, or get his own department to consider whether, if this is not against the law, some regulation is needed if we are not to have just millionaires putting money into our political system?
Lord Young of Cookham
I understand the concern expressed by the noble Baroness and, indeed, by DCMS. It might be a matter for the Information Commissioner, who has been given new powers under the Data Protection Act, which has recently been passed. She is already investigating the possible misuse of data held by Facebook and used by Cambridge Analytica. We will shortly publish a White Paper on online harm setting out our objective to make the UK the safest place in which to be online.
Lord Grocott
We have heard enough from the remain side; let us hear from the other—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, let us hear from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.
Lord Grocott
I am grateful to the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Foulkes spoke with passion and eloquence on behalf of the 700,000 people who marched. If I can say a word on behalf of the 17.4 million people who voted leave, it is this: ever since the referendum result was declared—this just another step along the way—there has been an unremitting campaign to try to discredit or, at best, reverse the result of the referendum on numerous different fronts, of which this is just the latest example. Can the Minister put this all in perspective and recognise that the 17.4 million people who voted leave were not all duped by the Russians and were not all ignorant about the issues which were before them? All they asked was this simple request, which we want the Government to get on with: to leave the European Union.
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord will know that after the referendum the relevant legislation was passed through both Houses. Legislation will shortly be introduced, following a successful negotiation with the European Union. I share his wish, as much as anybody else, that this whole matter be brought to a conclusion swiftly and cohesively, and we can then move on to other matters.
Sexual Offences
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morris of Aberavon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recent prosecutions in Huddersfield, whether there are sufficient resources to investigate the alleged sexual offences in the other towns and cities of the United Kingdom in a timely manner.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, these horrific crimes are sickening and I commend the bravery of victims coming forward and the police for the successful prosecutions so far. The Government have made a commitment to tackle child sexual abuse in all its forms and we have made a significant investment to help transform law enforcement’s response.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My Lords, justice delayed is justice denied and this seems to have happened from Huddersfield to Rochdale, from Halifax to Newcastle, and in many other towns. Criminal law practitioners have sought to maintain the rule of law for victims and perpetrators without fear or favour. Have timely investigation and prosecution been sacrificed in favour of social cohesion? Will the Government invite the inspectors of constabulary and the CPS to analyse and report on the timeliness of the investigations and the prosecutions?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I do not think that what has happened here is political correctness; I think that, given the sheer number of people involved in the types of crimes they committed against some very vulnerable girls, it has taken time to bring this case forward—and, of course, the case was delayed for reasons outside the CPS’s control. It is really important, for successful prosecutions to be brought, that full rigour goes into the investigation and subsequent prosecutions.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to the police and to the bravery of the victims of these appalling crimes. By coming forward, they have highlighted this evil, had the criminals brought to justice and protected other young girls from becoming victims. Compare that to the irresponsible actions of those who risked collapsing the trial. What work are the Government undertaking to understand the full scope and size of this crime, of these offences, in our country? Without understanding that, it will be very hard to effectively resource both prevention and investigations, and to bring all the perpetrators to justice.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord makes a very good point: unless we can understand the root causes of this, it is very difficult to tackle it. There have been several similar cases of the abuse of children. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said:
“I will not let cultural or political sensitivities get in the way of understanding the problem ... I’ve instructed my officials to explore the … characteristics of these types of gangs and if the evidence suggests that there are cultural factors that may be driving this type of offending, then I will take action”.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, according to the Sunday Times, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the police would help their case for more money if they were more responsive to local residents and investigated crimes such as burglary, rather than labour-intensive investigations into historical sexual offences. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I have to apologise to the noble Lord because, although I read the Sunday Times, I did not read that particular article. But nobody can be in any doubt about the commitment of this Government commitment to tackling this type of abuse, and in particular that of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Child sexual abuse has been declared a national threat and the Government are investing millions of pounds to enable officers to actively seek out and bring these types of offenders to justice. Last February, the Government published our tackling child sexual exploitation progress report and we have announced a £40 million package of measures to protect children and young people from sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking, and to crack down on offenders. This has included £7.5 million for a new, ground-breaking centre of expertise that will identify, generate and share high-quality evidence of what works in preventing and tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation. We have put a significant increase in resources into the NCA, leading to a near doubling of the CEOP command’s investigative capability, and an additional £20 million has been committed up to 2020 to maintain this. There is a further £20 million of transformation funds going into the regional organised crime units, which do a superb job in bringing to justice perpetrators who target children online.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, this Question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, is actually just a provincial equivalent of the discussion we had on the first Oral Question. The simple fact is that the Minister is explaining small penny-packets of money that are being put into a particular problem. My successor but two as commissioner, Cressida Dick, has 20% less money than I had when I left 10 years ago. Will the Minister accept that it is simply impossible for the police service to go on with 20% less money without something giving? Something is already starting to give and the Government must take action.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think I have made it clear, in response to both this and the earlier Question, that there are certain types of crime patterns, such as knife and gang crime in London, which are worrying and into which the Government have sought to put specific types of funding, but also that this type of child sexual abuse and exploitation requires a dedicated approach to a specific problem. But I do not resile from the fact—and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recognises this, as does the Policing Minister—that considering all the things that the police have to do and the strain they are under, they have significant burdens on them. Both my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister are very aware of this as we go into next year.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the police’s resources and priorities should be in part determined by public concern? Is she in any doubt at all that the public are deeply concerned about the exploitation of vulnerable girls by gangs? What role have the police commissioners played in this matter?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, this has to be a multiagency approach. It is a job that local government will have across its desk in terms of protecting vulnerable children. The police will have it across their desks. The Department of Health will have it across its desk. It is also the job of education to ensure that girls—predominantly—who may be vulnerable to this sort of exploitation are supported in the communities in which they live. I have outlined the various funding packages to try to prevent such things happening, but the noble Lord is not wrong when he says that resources need to go into this. Sometimes the public’s priorities are not the priorities that the police might seek to invest in, but this is a major national priority.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may have read the Times report this morning on the county lines abuse of young children in Bradford. I am sure that the Government think that getting at this abuse of children through county lines drug networks is also a priority. The last time I was driven around north Bradford by one of our local councillors, I did not see a single policeman on the streets all afternoon—although I did see three people peddling drugs on the streets as we passed by. Does that not mean that we need larger resources than we have at the moment to cope with the underlying social issues that give rise to this sort of exploitation of children, male and female?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right to bring up the issue of county lines, because that encompasses everything we have been talking about in response to the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, as well as to this one. There is definitely a link between gangs, guns, drugs and exploitation, and at the heart of it—always—is exploited children.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, do the Government accept that if we extrapolate nationally the Jay report on Rotherham and other reports from Telford and Oxford, there appear to have been upwards of 250,000 young white girls raped in this century, very largely by Muslim men, usually several times a day for years? What is the Government’s answer to the chief constable of Northumbria Police, who has just said that there is every likelihood that these grooming gangs are operating in every one of our major cities? What are the Government doing to prosecute those in authority who turned a blind eye to all this because they were afraid of being called Islamophobic and so on? What are they doing to compensate and help these victims mentally?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I refute the charge that those in authority are turning a blind eye to this. Noble Lords from across the House have outlined various child sexual abuse perpetrations in various parts of the country. One thing we can say above all else is that what these people target is vulnerability. It is not specific to race, creed or colour—it is vulnerability.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Bill be considered in Committee in the following order: Clauses 1 to 12, Schedule 1, Clauses 13 to 18, Schedule 2, Clauses 19 to 21, Schedule 3, Clause 22, Schedule 4, Clauses 23 to 27, Title.
Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]
Monday 22nd October 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 View all Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (18 Oct 2018)
15:41 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 108 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
15:58 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 208 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 1 agreed.
16:38 - Division on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 205 - Amendment 6 disagreed.
The Lord Speaker
Sorry, there is this old rule in this House that when the Speaker is up, Members are down. Perhaps that could be remembered. The question is that this Report be now received.
Lord Rosser
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations designating an international agreement under section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (interception in accordance with overseas requests) where that agreement provides for requests to be made by the competent authorities of a country or territory, or of more than one country or territory, in which a person found guilty of a criminal offence may be sentenced to death for the offence under the general criminal law of the country or territory concerned.(4B) Subsection 4A does not apply if the country or territory has, within the international agreement, given assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed in any case in which or in whose preparation electronic data obtained under this Act has been used.”
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Bill is intended to assist in the fight against serious crime, not least terrorism, by making it possible to conclude agreements with other countries that would provide for electronic data in the possession of a service provider, in that other country to the agreement, to be passed to the UK authorities upon that service provider being served with an overseas production order made by a court in this country. Such arrangements would almost certainly have to be reciprocal, so that the authorities in that other country could make an overseas production order or equivalent in respect of the provision of electronic data by a service provider in this country. The necessity for having these provisions in the Bill is that the current procedure for obtaining such data, which is increasingly used in major crimes or in their planning as the technology rapidly develops, is what is known as mutual legal assistance. Under this process, the application for such data must be through the authorities and a court in the country of the service provider from which that data is being sought. If the application is agreed, there is still the process of actually obtaining the data from the service provider.
In reality, obtaining electronic data under the existing mutual legal assistance arrangements can take many months—apparently up to 12—which is not exactly conducive to fighting effectively serious crime and terrorism, with the length of time taken to obtain that data acting either as a disincentive to seeking it at all or it being obtained so late as to seriously negate its relevance and effectiveness. As I understand it, discussions have already taken place between the United Kingdom and the United States of America about concluding reciprocal arrangements for securing electronic data under the Bill’s provisions on overseas production orders. Indeed, I think the United States has already passed its necessary legislation to enable such arrangements or agreements to be concluded with the UK. We are not in any way opposed to the introduction of these new arrangements in principle but we have two significant areas of concern, one of which is the implications for the UK’s stance on opposition to the death penalty. That is the subject of Amendment 1, which is also in the names of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
An order from this country for an overseas production order applying to a service provider in the USA would, under the Bill, be made in a UK court. The service provider in the USA would, under the terms of the arrangements likely to be concluded, be expected to comply. In fact, as I understand it again, our Government have stated that they will not seek such an order unless they know that the provider would be willing to comply voluntarily.
As understand it again, service providers are likely to be willing to comply because the Bill will provide them with legal protection for releasing such electronic data. Likewise a service provider in this country would, in the normal course of events, be expected to comply with an overseas production order made by a court in another country—such as America, with which it looks as though we are close to concluding an agreement—under the terms of the Bill. I am not sure that there has been an indication from the American authorities that they would seek such an order only if they knew that the relevant service provider over here would comply, so some form of enforcement action could be the result if there was non-compliance.
Our concern in respect of the death penalty, to which this amendment relates, is that in a number of states in the USA it can be handed down as the sentence if a defendant is found guilty of certain serious crimes, including acts of terrorism. In the UK we are opposed to the death penalty—government Ministers have repeatedly stated that—and do not apply it as a sentence. However an overseas production order made by a court in the USA for electronic data from a service provider in this country could result in a situation whereby that electronic data might be significant in or key to enabling a court in America to convict a defendant who could be a citizen of any country, including Britain, of an offence carrying the death penalty as a possible sentence.
There is no issue with an individual being convicted of a serious offence they have committed, not least terrorism, as a result of electronic data obtained from a service provider in the UK and receiving an appropriate sentence, but we have an issue with the provision of such information from this country under the terms of the Bill without an assurance that the death penalty could not be imposed. We cannot as a nation say we are opposed to the death penalty and then sign an agreement with another country, whether the USA or another nation, knowing that a court in that other country could then make an order for a service provider here to provide electronic data which could make the difference between a defendant, perhaps a British citizen, being convicted or not convicted of an offence that led to the death penalty being applied.
This amendment provides that, in any agreement on overseas production orders and the provision of electronic data under the terms of the Bill, assurances must be obtained from the other country concerned that the death penalty will not be applied in respect of any offence for which a defendant has been found guilty and in which the information provided from this country contributed in any way to securing that conviction.
I believe the Government have previously said that there will need to be some form of disputes procedure against an overseas production order made in another country with which we have concluded a reciprocal agreement. However the Government have not been able to say what form that dispute procedure will take, how it will operate or, crucially, on what grounds an overseas production order made in that other country could successfully be challenged. Since the Government have resisted any suggestion of the Bill specifically stating that no reciprocal agreement or arrangement can be made with a country that will not give a cast-iron assurance that any electronic data from this country would not be used to help convict a defendant of an offence for which the death penalty would be applied, it seems extremely unlikely that grounds for a successful objection to an overseas production order under any disputes procedure could be that the data being sought could be used to help secure a conviction that could lead to the death penalty being imposed.
I repeat that the amendment does not preclude a reciprocal agreement being reached with other countries on overseas production orders to secure electronic data in the battle against serious crime, not least terrorism, by improving the prospects of securing convictions and, with them, the prospects of lengthy sentences of imprisonment to reflect the severity of the crime. The amendment seeks to ensure that our policy as a nation of opposing the death penalty is not compromised by service providers here being required by a court in another country with which we have reached an agreement under the terms of the Bill being expected to hand over data when there is no guarantee that that information will not be used to assist in securing a conviction, which could be of a British citizen, for which the death penalty could be applied. We cannot claim that we did not know that that would be the outcome. It will have come about through passing the Bill at the behest of the Government and the Government concluding an international agreement with another country, such as the USA, where the death penalty can still be applied in some states, without securing an assurance as part of that international agreement that the death penalty will not be applied where data secured under the Bill has played a part in securing that conviction. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations designating an international co-operation agreement providing for the use of—(a) section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (interception in accordance with overseas requests), or(b) any other enactment which provides for the collection of electronic data,unless the condition in subsection 4B is met.(4B) The condition is that the states party to or participating in the international co-operation agreement have”
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, unusually, I shall be supporting Amendment 1 but I shall also speak to Amendments 2 and 3 in this group. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have added our names to Amendment 1 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy, but we feel that the amendment to Clause 1 as drafted does not go far enough.
Before I come to that, however, I wish to say that I wholeheartedly support what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has said about the provisions of the Bill. Bearing in mind that they are likely to be mutual, in that similar provisions would be in a Bill in a country with which we are going to enter into a treaty, it is very important to have a death penalty assurance in that treaty, which is what the amendment seeks to do. In addition to what the noble Lord has said about UK Ministers saying that we in the UK are opposed to the death penalty, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, together with Protocol 13 to which the UK is a signatory, provides for the total abolition of the death penalty. In early meetings with the Minister, we were led to believe that that death penalty assurance would be part of any treaty. However, we feel we need that reassurance in the Bill.
As I say, we took the unusual step of both supporting and amending the Labour amendment on the basis that we both agree on the principle of Amendment 1— that the Government should not enter into a treaty that would require UK companies to provide electronic data to law enforcement in a country that had the death penalty unless the treaty contained assurances that the death penalty would not be implemented if data provided by UK companies was used. We believe that the prohibition on entering into a treaty with a country that has the death penalty should be broader than just the data covered by Section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which is what Amendment 1 covers, because that provision covers only the interception of communications in the course of transmission—wiretaps, listening in to telephone conversations and that type of electronic data. A British company could hold personal information about an individual that could be crucial in an investigation for an offence that carries the death penalty in the country making the request. Such electronic data would not necessarily be in the course of transmission but held on servers in the UK.
Our Amendment 2 would therefore include,
“any other enactment which provides for the collection of electronic data”.
Amendment 3 makes it clear that the prohibition on entering into a treaty would not apply if an assurance had been given that the death penalty would not be imposed whether either intercepted communication or any other kind of electronic data had been provided under the Act. That amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.
We want to ensure that no UK company is complicit in providing electronic data of any kind that could lead to someone being executed. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for speaking to their amendments today and express my gratitude to all Members of the House for their contributions both in Committee and today on Report—I think it is the same two noble Lords, but perhaps there are one or two more.
I stress to the House the importance of the UK-US data access agreement. The agreement will allow the UK authorities access to valuable evidence and intelligence directly from US communication service providers. The House should be made aware that the vast majority of CSPs and their data reside in the US, not the UK. The Bill gives our law enforcement a strategic advantage in the fight against the threat we face.
Indeed, in almost every serious criminal investigation, we expect those we investigate to be using services provided by CSPs based in the US. The agreement will make a significant contribution to the detection, investigation, prevention and prosecution of serious crime and terrorism. The Government have been working towards the agreement with the help of US CSPs and the US Government for several years following the recommendation from the then Prime Minister’s data envoy Sir Nigel Sheinwald.
All Governments and any future Governments have the duty to put the security of their people first. It will always be in the public interest to ensure that our police and agencies have access to the necessary intelligence and evidence in order to fulfil that duty. Just as it was under the previous Labour Government and as it is today, Ministers must always be mindful of the current threat environment they find themselves in. That is why we believe that better scrutiny of these agreements and accountability for future treaties is the best way to ensure that the Government’s principles are tested, rather than prescribing a rigid format for treaties that have not yet even been mooted, let alone being currently under negotiation.
Of course, the Government’s objective is to obtain a satisfactory death penalty assurance, but negotiations are ongoing and not yet concluded. Playing the discussions out in public may make it much harder to conclude them effectively.
Let me be clear to the House: there will be an assurance in the agreement. We can expect it to rule out the direct use of information obtained under the agreement as evidence in a prosecution where the death penalty might apply. Parliament will scrutinise the final detail of any agreement and the assurance it contains. We have already tabled an amendment today clarifying that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process will always apply to relevant international agreements, ensuring that Members have two opportunities to scrutinise a treaty.
But I am willing to go further. Noting the concerns that noble Lords have expressed, the Government will commit to bringing forward an amendment in the Commons. Such an amendment would not pre-empt negotiations with the US, or any future agreement with another country, but would instead absolutely guarantee that Parliament has the chance to conduct proper, thorough scrutiny of relevant agreements and death penalty assurances.
The amendment I envisage would ensure that Ministers cannot make regulations to designate any agreement with a country which retains the death penalty for incoming requests without first laying before Parliament the agreement and details of any assurances obtained. There would then be a defined period during which Parliament would have a chance to examine those details, and this could include scrutiny by any relevant committees.
Finally, the Secretary of State would be obliged to consider any recommendations made by a committee in relation to the assurances before laying regulations to designate the agreement. Of course, the regulations themselves would then be subject to the usual process of parliamentary scrutiny, during which time Members of both Houses could consider any recommendations and respond to them.
Ultimately, it is right that Parliament has a say on the difficult decision between not concluding negotiations on agreements and securing the death penalty assurances we would like. Both the amendments tabled by Labour and Liberal Democrat Peers could lead to our being unable to conclude a data access agreement with the US. If we find ourselves in that situation, law enforcement agencies and the UK intelligence community will continue to be denied timely access to valuable evidence and intelligence.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that Section 52 of the IPA covers only material intercepted in the course of transmission. That is not entirely correct. It can authorise obtaining stored communications as well as intercept. As I said, there is a balance to be struck here. That is why I ask Members not to tie the Government’s hands in negotiations. Instead I will commit to amending the Bill in the Commons to ensure that Parliament has ample opportunity to scrutinise any future treaty and, if relevant, its death penalty assurance.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Unless she wishes to contradict me, I think she just said that these treaties are very important to the extent that the British Government are prepared to allow people to be executed on the basis of data provided by British companies to overseas law enforcement. The essence of these amendments is that that should not be allowed and we want that reassurance on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do contradict the noble Lord. I am asking noble Lords not to tie the Government’s hands in negotiation.
Lord Paddick
Forgive me, but I do not see the difference between what I said and what the Minister has just said, unless she wants to clarify further.
We are concerned about this because of the recent case of Kotey and Elsheikh, in which the American authorities asked for information from the British on two people who were part of an ISIS cell. The Home Secretary decided that the information would be provided without a death penalty assurance. We are concerned that what might considered a one-off case which contradicts the British Government’s usual global opposition to the death penalty is now going to be enshrined in treaties. I understand what the Minister said about Section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act, but that is not our understanding and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 2.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for the Government’s response to my amendment—or rather the amendment I have moved; it is not purely my amendment. The Government’s argument appears to be based on two or three strands. The first is an inference that another country—realistically, we are talking about the USA—might not be willing to conclude an agreement with us under the Bill, including of course a reciprocal agreement, if this amendment is passed with its provisions for prior assurances on non-application of the death penalty. Why, though, should we not have the assurances that this amendment seeks, when we are talking about information from this country? Why should we have to compromise on our stance of opposition to the death penalty by having to hand over electronic data following an order in a court, or made in a court in another country, which could lead to the death penalty being applied if that information helped in securing a conviction in that other country?
I notice that the Government said that such information would not be used in evidence. However, information can be of value in securing a conviction without that evidence in itself being produced in evidence, since it may point people in directions which will lead to other evidence being produced which could assist in securing a conviction. It surely is not opposition to the death penalty—and government Ministers keep telling us that we are opposed to it—if you conclude an agreement that you know could allow the death penalty to be applied thanks to our assistance and co-operation over the provision of data. We need the safeguard that the death penalty will not be applied.
The other point is that orders will be made in that other country that the international agreement we conclude with it will expect to be adhered to and data supplied without any ability of a British court or the Government to say no on the ground that the death penalty could be applied. No assurances have been given that that will not be the case. In the absence of any detail about any disputes procedure and the circumstances in which it would operate, we will not be able to stop information being handed over on the ground that it could allow the death penalty to be applied.
In that regard, we do not know how many overseas production orders will be served on service providers in the UK by other countries with which we reach an agreement and where the death penalty could be applied. It could be a considerable number, and the Government cannot deny that. We could, in fact, be assisting in the application of the death penalty on a not infrequent basis.
As I understand it, the Government have now indicated that they will put down an amendment when the Bill reaches the Commons. It appears that that amendment might provide—I am really not sure—for some kind of review of any agreement reached on overseas production orders with another country, the outcome of which would presumably be available to Parliament before Parliament decides whether or not to ratify the agreement. But Parliament will presumably have to say yes or no to the agreement and will not be able to amend it, and neither will there be any requirement on the Government to accept the findings of any prior review or investigation of an agreement with another country reached under the terms of this Bill and, in particular, on any recommendation that an assurance should be sought on the non-application of the death penalty if it applies in the country concerned.
I really do not think that the assurance given and the statement made about the nature of a possible amendment in the Commons meet the provisions of this amendment, which clearly state that, if we are going to conclude such agreements with other countries on overseas production orders, and if it is a country where the death penalty can apply, firm assurances must be sought that, where information is handed over by service providers in this country, it will not be used to secure a conviction that could lead to the death penalty being imposed. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
(a) relates (in whole or in part) to the provision of mutual assistance in connection with the investigation or prosecution of offences, and (b) is designated by the Secretary of State by regulations.(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) a treaty is a relevant treaty if a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a copy of the treaty under section 20(1)(a) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.(“Treaty” and “Minister of the Crown” have the same meaning for the purposes of this section as they have for the purposes of Part 2 of that Act.)”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government recognise that, when it comes to agreements for direct access to data, it is unlikely that either the UK or another country would commit to complying with orders that have extraterritorial scope without acknowledging this through a formalised agreement or arrangement. Therefore, in reality, any arrangement we choose to enter into for direct access to data will likely be in the form of a treaty requiring formal ratification before entry into force. It is not the Government’s intention to conclude such international arrangements by memoranda of understanding, for example. We do not think that such informal arrangements would afford the appropriate level of certainty that such international arrangements require.
As noble Lords know, treaties that require ratification are subject to formal parliamentary scrutiny in the form of a procedure under Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG—which must be followed before the Government can complete the ratification process necessary to bring the agreement into force. The text contained in the Bill introduced to this House was intended to allow the UK to consider other measures, such as EU instruments that do not fulfil the definition of “treaty” under CRaG. However, we have since concluded that it is highly unlikely that the UK, or any other country we enter into agreements with, would accept anything less than a formal treaty. I therefore propose to make an amendment to Clause 1 to make this clear.
The amendment provides that a designated international co-operation arrangement must be a “relevant treaty”. It would further provide that a “relevant treaty” is one that has been laid before Parliament under Section 20(1)(a) of CRaG. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that where the Secretary of State, by way of regulations, wishes to designate an arrangement under the Bill, they can do so only if that arrangement is a treaty that has been laid before Parliament for scrutiny under CRaG. Only treaties that have been laid before Parliament under CRaG can be designated. However, it is still possible for an agreement to be designated before ratification. There may be operational reasons why one would want to designate an agreement before ratification has been finalised. For example, an agreement may come into force on ratification—depending on the terms of the agreement—in which case designating after ratification may be too late and there may be a risk of breach of obligations under the agreement.
The effect of Amendment 5 in the names of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord would preclude any designation of an international co-operation agreement until it has been ratified. Ratification is a process which requires an act—for example, the exchange of diplomatic notes between the parties—which signals in international law the parties’ consent to be bound by the agreement. However, the amendment could cause a detrimental effect, as I have explained, where the terms of an agreement require that it comes into force on the day of ratification. The amendment would make it impossible to designate until after the ratification process, which may put the UK in breach of any obligations under the agreement. I should also make clear that even where an agreement is designated after having be laid under CRaG but before it is ratified, an agreement could not come into force until the process of ratification is complete and therefore any requests could not be made until the agreement is entered into force, following ratification. I hope that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw Amendment 5. I beg to move.
Amendment 5 (to Amendment 4)
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s significant movement towards the use of the treaty procedure, which we and, I believe, the Labour Benches argued for at the previous stage. I was concerned that the amendment was incomplete, and the Minister has explained why her amendment refers to “laying” the treaty, but not the other provisions of Section 20 and several subsequent sections of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.
As the Minister has told the House, it is quite a complicated and potentially long drawn-out procedure. I accept that, but it is long drawn-out because it is designed to give Parliament a proper opportunity to have input into the final product of the treaty, with various stages for its consideration, ending up in ratification. The Minister, in arguing on the first group of amendments, stressed the importance of the procedure. She has just said that the Government might want to make a designation before ratification. It seems to me that this nullifies the impact of the procedure process, and assumes that Parliament will ratify—in other words, will vote as the Government tell it to, which is precisely the arrangement we do not want in place.
The Minister has, however, just talked about the treaty not coming into force until ratification—she is nodding at that, for which I am grateful. I wonder whether she would be prepared to have a discussion—she has been prepared for lots of discussions on the Bill already, for which we are grateful—about an amendment we might table at Third Reading to tidy this up, encapsulating what she has just said to the House about delaying the process until the parliamentary process has been completed. I had better move this amendment, and then we can debate it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am sorry that I have not been very clear. I am very happy, should the noble Baroness wish to withdraw Amendment 5 and accept Amendment 4, to have a discussion before Third Reading—we have discussed our way through this Bill—but in the meantime I ask her to withdraw Amendment 5.
Baroness Hamwee
Of course I am happy to do that. I am sorry, I thought that was implied. I do not wish any more exercise on noble Lords than we need to have during the course of this afternoon. I look forward to that discussion and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“(8A) “Journalistic data” means electronic data that—(a) was created or acquired for the purposes of journalism, and(b) is stored by or on behalf of a person who created or acquired it for the purposes of journalism.(8B) Where a person (“R”) receives electronic data from another person (“S”) and S intends R to use the data for the purposes of journalism, R is to be taken to have acquired the data for those purposes.(8C) Journalistic data is “confidential journalistic data” if—(a) it is acquired or created by a person or persons in their capacity as a journalist and is held in confidence, or (b) it is communications data of a person acting in their capacity as a journalist, or(c) it is held subject to a restriction on disclosure, or an obligation of secrecy, contained in any enactment (whenever passed or made).”
Lord Rosser
The Bill extends the ability of law enforcement agencies through overseas production orders to obtain electronic data held by service providers overseas for the purposes of fighting serious crime, including terrorism. Since the assumption is that an agreement with another country will be reciprocal, the terms of the Bill when implemented will also, in reality, allow law enforcement agencies in that other country with which we have a reciprocal agreement to more easily obtain electronic data held by service providers in this country. But the Bill does not appear to provide adequate safeguards against confidential journalistic material being handed over in a way that results in sources losing their anonymity. We thus appear to have a Bill that potentially compromises the position and values of our free press. If sources of information do not feel that their anonymity will be protected, they are much less likely to provide information to journalists—information that might bring to light corruption, fraud, sexual offences, adverse environmental activity or failings by large organisations or government, for example, that those involved might wish to keep secret.
Clause 12 requires that where an overseas production order is made in respect of confidential journalistic data, it must be made on notice. The agency applying for the overseas production order would have to judge whether the material sought was ordinary or confidential journalistic material, but there is no guarantee under the Bill as it stands that the journalist, or indeed media organisation, will be able to make representations to the court. There is no requirement in the Bill for the journalist or media organisation that acquired the confidential material to be informed. The judge has a discretion to notify the journalist but not a duty. Without a requirement to notify the journalist or media organisation, take representations from them and have regard to what they say, there is no means by which journalists or media organisations can seek to protect their source.
This amendment seeks to address this concern by providing the right of journalists or media organisations to be given notice that an order in respect of confidential material is being sought, and to then be able to make representations to oppose the making of an order involving such journalistic material. It would also provide that the judge must be satisfied that there is a public interest that overwrites the confidentiality of the data sought before an order is made. If the Government have concerns that there might be journalists whom they would not wish to inform of an application for an order, then the advice could be given to the media organisation for whom that journalist worked.
The amendment seeks to ensure the continuation of an important safeguard. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, from these Benches we had an amendment in Committee requiring the court to be,
“satisfied that … data … is not confidential journalistic data”.
We were concerned that the Government had not consulted the NUJ or other organisations; I wonder whether they have had an opportunity for a discussion since then. The News Media Association certainly made its views clear with its concern about what it described as an artificial distinction between “journalistic material” and “confidential journalistic material” and what might flow from that distinction.
New subsection (8C)(b) proposed in Amendment 6 seems to make all data held by a person acting as a journalist “confidential journalistic data”. I see the attraction in that but I wonder whether this is the place to treat material differently from how it is treated elsewhere in UK law—in other words, I wonder about making that provision apply for the purposes of this piece of legislation only, which is a fairly small piece of the jigsaw of legislation that applies to journalism. Can the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, confirm when he winds up whether I have read this correctly: is he eliminating a distinction in this piece of legislation only, and only in the circumstances to which it will apply?
With regard to Amendment 11, we support a requirement to give notice of an application. We had an amendment to that effect in Committee, and we have amendments in the next grouping that are an attempt to respond to the Minister’s comments on the issue then.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Bill provides that journalistic material which is non-confidential can be obtained through an overseas production order without having to give notice. This type of material may, for example, be the manuscript or copy that the journalist is working on. A judge must be satisfied that the material is relevant to a UK investigation and in the UK public interest before he can approve an order to obtain it. The Bill implicitly recognises that a person named in an order may merely store data on behalf of a person, including those who create or acquire it for journalistic purposes. Journalistic material that is already published is unlikely to form part of an application for an overseas production order. That is because this material can already be freely accessed by law enforcement agencies, and there would be no need to compel production of information that was already in the public domain.
However, where information relates to confidential journalistic material—that is, it is created subject to an obligation that it would be held in confidence and that obligation continues to be held, or it is held subject to a restriction on disclosure or obligation of secrecy contained in legislation—that material will be subject to the notice provisions under Clauses 12 and 13. Therefore, if a journalist stores information—whether in their manuscript, copy or otherwise—that relates to or contains such confidential material, that can be sought but only if an application is made “on notice”. We expect court rules to set out that such an application cannot be determined by the court in the absence of a respondent unless they have waived the opportunity to attend. That already exists in court rules in relation to domestic production orders if, for example, the police wish to obtain access to a journalist’s notebook.
Our objective is to protect legitimate journalism, ensuring that those who may wish to harm us cannot hide behind claims of the data being journalistic to evade investigation or prosecution. Coupled with that, we have been clear that material acquired or created by the journalist to further a criminal purpose is not considered journalistic material. That terminology is borrowed from the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which sought to ensure that safeguards and protections were targeted at legitimate forms of journalism.
The reason that the Government have carved out material,
“created or acquired with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose”,
is to follow the direction that the Investigatory Powers Act identified, which is that safeguards should not exist for those who intend, through media channels, to do us harm, but then seek to hide behind spurious claims of journalism. One example is the media wing of Daesh, which may use an internet blog designed to disseminate harmful information and claim that it was journalistic material and therefore not caught by the provisions. Conversely, if a journalist acquires a leaked document from a source which alludes to criminal conduct, the journalist acquires it for journalistic purposes, not with the intention of themselves furthering a criminal purpose.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I may have misheard the Minister and therefore misunderstood her argument, but she seemed to be saying at one point that my noble friend’s amendments were not necessary because this is already covered under the PACE regulations. Is that the reason for resisting it—it is not necessary because it goes no further—or is she suggesting that there are elements of it which do go further that the Government are resisting? If the latter is the case, perhaps she could indicate to us what has gone further that she does not like. If it is simply that it is not necessary, can she explain why the Government are resisting it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think I have already explained at length why it is not necessary. If Clause 12 were to be amended, a court would not be able to make an overseas production order in relation to confidential journalistic material unless the requirements set out there were satisfied.
Lord Harris of Haringey
So there is no objection to what my noble friend has tabled; the Minister is saying simply that it is not necessary?
Lord Rosser
The protection of sources in relation to confidential journalistic data is very important to the free press in our country. I pointed out—and, as far as I understand it, this is not being contested by the Government—that there is no requirement in the Bill for the journalist or media organisation which acquired the confidential material to be informed. That seems to be a significant hole in the legislation. Surely in that situation the journalist or media organisation concerned should be able to make representations and to oppose the granting of an order; in other words, their voice should be heard—perhaps, from their point of view, to seek to protect their confidential sources.
I note the Government’s argument that this is already provided for in other legislation. I say only that we are dealing with something here which can relate also—under reciprocal arrangements, presumably—to orders made by a court in another country and not only in relation to orders made by a court in this country. In that situation it is absolutely vital, even if the Government believe that the safeguards are already there, that the ability of a journalist or media organisation to be informed of an application for an order, and the chance to appear and make representations in connection with that order, should be repeated in the Bill. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 7 is an amendment to Clause 5, which deals with the contents of an order. If my amendment were agreed to, subsection (2) would read:
“The judge must not specify or describe in the order electronic data that … consists of or includes excepted electronic data”.
The clause would not include the phrase,
“the judge has reasonable grounds for believing”,
includes excepted data. That may sound as if I am dancing on the head of a pin but I think it is quite an important issue. In Committee I explained that I was seeking a formula that was objective. The Minister responded by referring to the phrase “reasonable grounds” being used elsewhere in the Bill. Indeed, the clauses that she mentioned, Clauses 1 and 7, include that phrase but they are not about an order; they are about the basis for making an application, which I suggest is a rather different matter.
I accept that, as she said, the contents of data may not be known until they are produced, but without our amendment, or some such amendment, the judge could make an order that it later turned out did include excepted data. I was looking for an objectively based exception because how otherwise do you appeal? Would you be appealing against the judge’s reasonableness? That would not be the same as appealing on the basis that the data was excepted. I would find it very uncomfortable to have to appeal against whether or not a judge was reasonable. What really should be at issue is the character of the data, and we are not satisfied that the Bill really addresses that. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness for moving her amendment and for raising this point again. Perhaps my response in Committee was not persuasive enough for her.
The Bill has been drafted to include multiple safeguards so that a person is not required to produce excepted electronic data. “Excepted electronic data” means electronic data that is either an item subject to legal privilege or a confidential personal record. The Government do not want to see overseas production orders being used to obtain such information, nor do we expect our officers to target it.
First, Clause 1(3) sets out that an appropriate officer must not apply for an overseas production order in respect of electronic data where that officer has reasonable grounds for believing that it consists of excepted electronic data. Clause 5(2) includes another one of these safeguards: a judge must not specify or describe data in an overseas production order where he or she has reasonable grounds for believing the data sought includes or consists of excepted data. The wording “reasonable grounds for believing” is important given that there is no guarantee, at the time of considering an application, that either the judge or the applicant can be certain if the data sought will, in fact, contain excepted data.
Let me put it in this context: say the email records of criminal X were requested from June in a certain year because law enforcement agencies believed they had been communicating for criminal purposes with someone else. It would be impossible for either the law enforcement agency or the judge to know for certain that within those emails, there also happened to be correspondence between criminal X and their doctor.
I understand that the noble Baroness’s concerns in Committee were about the objectivity of the judge in allowing an order including potentially excepted data. The Government believe that the term “reasonable grounds for believing” gets us as close to objectivity as practicable. If a judge has “reasonable grounds for believing” that excepted data is included in the data sought in an application, they will not specify that excepted data when making the order. But if they do not have “reasonable grounds for believing”, as long as the other criteria are satisfied, the judge can make the order.
Indeed, should the respondent in receipt of an order know that it includes excepted data, Clause 6(4)(b) ensures that, despite the terms of the order, they are not required to produce that data. The noble Baroness asked in Committee how, if electronic data was within an order, it could be varied or revoked. The fact that the respondent is under no obligation to produce the excepted data removes any need for the respondent to apply to vary or revoke the order. To the extent that the order includes excepted data, it has no effect.
If we return briefly to criminal X, if a judge has allowed an order to be served on a communication service provider where the judge did not know that the emails requested included medical records, but the CSP did, that CSP would not be required to produce those emails. If the CSP provided the emails, knowingly or by accident, the data would then be sifted out by the appropriate body during the sifting exercise. It is therefore reasonable and proportionate for the Bill to retain the term “reasonable grounds for believing”, and it is a sensible reflection of what would happen in practice with overseas production orders.
I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Much of what we said was what we rehearsed in Committee. I have been looking to see whether Clause 6, which deals with the effect of the order, would meet my point. It takes us straight to the provision about the order having effect despite any restriction on the disclosure of information, which we found a difficult provision when we discussed it in Committee.
I will not tax the House by continuing with this at this stage, but I hope that the Minister will understand that I was not simply playing with words; there is real concern that the way that the Bill has been framed raises questions which people may have to grapple with in practice. I hope that they do not have too hard a time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 9 is grouped with Amendment 10. I thought that the point about court rules might get a bit lost in the debate on journalistic data, which is why I separated them when we were asked to approve the groupings.
In the context of journalistic data, in Committee the Minister relied heavily on how rules of court would operate. Clause 11 provides that the rules “may” make provision. I appreciate that rules will be made, because that is the way things are, but drafting styles change. I find this quite difficult; I get left behind with what is the up-to-date style. In ordinary speak—and I understand that attempts are being made to make parliamentary drafting as close to that as it can be—“may” is not the same as “must” or “shall”. I appreciate that there are differences between “may” and “must” elsewhere in the Bill, for instance in Clauses 8(1) and 8(3).
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Baroness has suggested amendments stipulating that court rules must make specific provision for certain things. Amendment 10 prescribes that court rules must be made relating to service of notice on a data controller, a data subject or where the application relates to journalistic data. I hope that I have already set out how we intend rules to include notice provisions in respect of the respondent and anyone else affected by an order. The rules already made by the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee in England and Wales for applications for production orders under Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and under other legislation, already include provision for the service of notice of applications, and additional special requirements where what is sought is the product of journalism. I refer the House to Part 47 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has already settled draft rules that, if this Bill passes, would be in terms corresponding with those existing rules.
We expect the court rules to include the same provisions as are currently in place for domestic orders. They would provide that a court must not determine any application for an overseas production order in the absence of the respondent, or other person affected, except in the following circumstances. First, the person has at least two days in which to make representations. Secondly, the court is satisfied that the applicant cannot identify or contact the person. Thirdly, the court is satisfied that it would prejudice the investigation if that person were to be present. Fourthly, the court is satisfied that it would prejudice the investigation to adjourn or postpone the application so as to allow the person to attend. Fifthly, the person has waived the opportunity to attend. In the case of an application which would require the production of confidential journalistic material, the court must not determine the application in the absence of the respondent until they have waived the opportunity to attend. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness on Amendments 9 and 10.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we have learned about the draft of the new rules and I am grateful for that. It is obviously difficult to take them in simply by listening and not reading them, although I noted the wording that one of the exceptions was that the court was satisfied that the person concerned—I am not sure what the technical term would be—“cannot” contact somebody. That is not the same as “will not” contact: anybody “can” contact someone, so I suspect that there might be a little more reflection on that.
Throughout the Bill’s progress, we have been told that the Government “intend” something or “expect” something. There comes a point when one hears that rather too often not to want to see something on the face of the Bill when it is material to the Bill. However, I am glad to have heard that progress has been made with regard to the rules and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
“Priority
In the event of any conflict between this Act and the Data Protection Act 2018 (“the DPA”) or the General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (“the GDPR”), the provisions of the DPA or the GDPR shall prevail.”
Lord Paddick
My Lords, were we to leave the European Union, the EU would examine our data protection regime to satisfy itself that it would be safe for the EU 27 to continue to exchange electronic data with the UK. This continued exchange of data is essential not only for law enforcement and counter- terrorism purposes but for commercial transactions.
The Government have recently passed the Data Protection Act 2018, which not only provides the necessary infrastructure to enable the UK to comply with the general data protection regulation, a piece of EU legislation, but ensures that the UK complies with EU standards of data protection in relation to law enforcement and national security that are not covered by the GDPR. In other words, the UK is ensuring that it complies with all EU data protection standards, so as to guarantee that it will be issued with a certificate of adequacy that will enable continued exchange of electronic data if we leave the EU.
If, as a result of this Bill or the treaties associated with it, UK companies were required to provide law enforcement agencies in other countries with personal data covered by the Data Protection Act and/or GDPR, and those foreign law enforcement agencies’ data protection standards were deemed by the EU to be inadequate, there is the potential for the EU to withdraw its adequacy certificate from the UK. Basically, if member states of the EU share data with the UK, and the UK shares that data under this Bill with law enforcement agencies that have inadequate data protection standards, the EU might stop sharing data with the UK. This amendment is designed to ensure that this does not happen. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised an issue about which Act would take precedence in the event of a conflict between this Bill—when it becomes an Act—and the Data Protection Act 2018. His amendment makes it clear that, in the case of a conflict, the DPA, along with the GDPR, would take precedence. That seems quite sensible: it gives us certainty on the matter, for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord. I support his amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank both noble Lords for their points. There has been nothing in our own domestic law that requires a UK provider to comply with an overseas order. There will therefore be no conflict with domestic law if a CSP decides that complying with a foreign order would put it in breach of its obligations under the GDPR.
The existence of any conflict with UK data protection law does not have the effect of making the order from the other country invalid. Equally, the existence of the order does not compel the UK CSP to ignore its data protection obligations under UK law. It will be for the CSP on which an order is served to reconcile and comply with all legal obligations it is under. It could apply for the variation or revocation of the order, or use the dispute resolution mechanism that we expect all specific international agreements to include. That said, we do not think that this is likely to be necessary in practice. The GDPR contains several “gateways” which permit the cross-border transfer of personal data, including in response to a request or order from overseas law enforcement.
I know the noble Lord’s concerns about data protection, and I absolutely sympathise with him. We have discussed this before, and I think that ultimately we all want the same thing: adequate protection for the privacy rights of individuals. I hope that my explanation will satisfy the noble Lord that the Bill does not in any way threaten data protection rights, which are robustly protected by existing legislation. UK CSPs will continue to be bound by the GDPR and the Data Protection Act. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw Amendment 12.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the Minister. I understand that she has just said that a communications service provider could refuse to comply with an order coming from overseas if the CSP believes that that would bring it into conflict with the GDPR and the Data Protection Act, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) References in this Act to proceedings relating to an overseas production order include proceedings for the making, variation or revocation of an order under section 8(4) or 13(3) or (4)(b).”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I explained in Committee that Clause 7(1) creates a power for the judge to vary or revoke an overseas production order. Where a non-disclosure requirement is included in an overseas production order—by virtue of Clause 8— Clause 7 will apply so that the non-disclosure requirement can also be varied or revoked by a judge.
However, as I said to the Grand Committee, it is the Government’s intention that judges should be able to vary or revoke all orders made under the Bill. As well as overseas production orders, this includes other orders made under provisions in the Bill; for example, an order made under Clause 8(4) which maintains an unexpired non-disclosure requirement when an overseas production order has been revoked. It has also been the intention of government that the procedure and process for varying and revoking an order would be governed by court rules, mirroring current legislation for production orders under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or the Terrorism Act 2000.
We gave a commitment in Grand Committee to review whether provisions that can be made in court rules relating to non-disclosure requirements when an overseas production order has been revoked should themselves be capable of being varied or revoked on application. Clause 11 provides that court rules may make provisions in relation to the practice and procedure to be followed when making an overseas production order. But the Government accept that this could give rise to doubt as to whether court rules could make provision in respect of other orders made under the Bill. I have therefore proposed an amendment to Clause 17 that puts beyond doubt that court rules can be made not only in relation to overseas production orders but in respect of the types of orders made under Clause 8(4) and Clause 13(3) and (4)(b). This will include making provision for the practice and procedure to be followed when applying to vary or revoke such orders.
Noble Lords raised questions in Committee about the process concerning how someone could vary or revoke an order. The future appeals process also arose in the context of notices that could be served on UK companies by another country party to an agreement. While the Bill deals only with outgoing orders—that is, ones issued by a UK court—we have ensured that the remedies available to someone served with a domestic production order are available to a person served with an overseas production order, and we would expect the other country to do the same.
In addition, we envisage a dispute resolution mechanism as part of any agreement we might designate under the Bill, which would allow a service provider concerned about whether the order that was sought complied with the terms of the agreement to raise objections with the authorities of the country concerned. This would allow a UK service provider to raise objections if it believed that a particular order should not have been served under the agreement. At first instance, these objections would be raised with the issuing country. If the service provider was still not satisfied, it could then go to the relevant UK authority. There may be ongoing discussions between the two parties to the agreement, but ultimately it would be a decision for the relevant UK authority to say whether or not the request from the other authority could safely be given effect to. I hope this addresses the concerns raised in Committee.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I think it must be lucky 13 for the Minister. However, I have a question. It may be that I did not properly follow the latter part of her explanation but I come back to “normal speak”. The amendment says that the references,
“include proceedings for the making, variation or revocation of an order”.
Is “include” here a synonym for “mean”? Do we read it as “references mean”? I am sorry to throw that at her at this point. Perhaps I should talk inconsequentially for a moment or two until she receives information via semaphore. The term does suggest that something else might be within the references. I think the Minister is about to get a response to that question.
Baroness Hamwee
With the leave of the House, I suggest that the Government return to this tiny thing before the next stage.
October European Council
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, before I turn to the European Council, I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning the killing of Jamal Khashoggi in the strongest possible terms. We must get to the truth of what happened. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be making a Statement shortly.
At the European Council, in addition to Brexit, there were important discussions on security and migration. First, at last Monday’s Foreign Ministers meeting, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his French counterpart secured agreement on a new EU sanctions regime on the use of chemical weapons. At this Council, I argued, along with Dutch Prime Minister Rutte, that we should also accelerate work on further measures, including sanctions, to respond to and deter cyberattacks. The attempted hacking of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague earlier this year was a stark example of the very real threats we face. We must impose costs on all those who seek to do us harm, regardless of the means they use, and this Council agreed to take that work forward.
Secondly, in marking Anti-Slavery Day, I welcome the continued commitment of all EU leaders in working together to eliminate the barbaric crime of people trafficking. We reaffirmed our shared commitments to doing more to tackle the challenges of migration upstream.
Following the Council, I met Premier Li of China, President Moon of South Korea and Prime Minister Lee of Singapore at the ASEM summit. Since 2010, our trade with Asia has grown by almost 50%—more than with any other continent in the world. I want to develop that even further. Indeed, the ability to develop our own new trade deals is one of the great opportunities of Brexit, so at this summit we discussed how the UK can build the most ambitious economic partnerships with all our Asian partners as we leave the European Union. We also agreed to deepen our co-operation across shared threats to our security.
Turning to Brexit, let me begin with the progress we have made on both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration on our future relationship. As I reported to the House last Monday, the shape of the deal across the vast majority of the withdrawal agreement is now clear. Since Salzburg, we have agreed the broad scope of provisions that set out the governance and dispute resolution arrangements for our withdrawal agreement. We have developed a protocol relating to the UK sovereign base areas in Cyprus. Following discussions with Spain, and in close co-operation with the Government of Gibraltar, we have also developed a protocol and a set of underlying memoranda relating to Gibraltar, heralding a new era in our relations. We have broad agreement on the structure and scope of the future relationship, with important progress made on issues such as security, transport and services. This progress in the past three weeks builds on the areas where we have already reached agreement: on citizens’ rights, on the financial settlement, on the implementation period, and, in Northern Ireland, on the preservation of particular rights for UK and Irish citizens and the special arrangements between us such as the common travel area, which has existed since before either the UK or Ireland ever became members of the European Economic Community.
Taking all of this together, 95% of the withdrawal agreement and its protocols are now settled. There is one real sticking point left, but it is a considerable one: how we guarantee that, in the unlikely event our future relationship is not in place by the end of the implementation period, there is no return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The commitment to avoiding a hard border is one this House emphatically endorsed and enshrined in law in the withdrawal Act earlier this year. As I set out last week, the original backstop proposal from the EU was one we could not accept, as it would mean creating a customs border down the Irish Sea and breaking up the integrity of our United Kingdom. I do not believe that any UK Prime Minister could ever accept this; I certainly will not.
As I said in my Mansion House speech, we chose to leave and we have a responsibility to help find a solution. So earlier this year, we put forward a counterproposal for a temporary UK-EU joint customs territory for the backstop. In a substantial shift in its position since Salzburg, the EU is now actively working with us on this proposal, but a number of issues remain. The EU argues that it cannot give a legally binding commitment to a UK-wide customs arrangement in the withdrawal agreement, so its original proposal must remain a possibility. Furthermore, people are understandably worried that we could get stuck in a backstop that is designed to be only temporary. There are also concerns that Northern Ireland could be cut off from accessing its most important market—Great Britain.
During last week’s Council, I had good discussions with Presidents Juncker, Tusk and Macron, Chancellor Merkel, Taoiseach Varadkar and others about how to break this impasse. I believe there are four steps we need to take. First, we must make the commitment to a temporary UK-EU joint customs territory legally binding, so the Northern Ireland-only proposal is no longer needed. This would protect relations not only north-south but, vitally, east-west. This is critical: the relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is an integral strand of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. To protect that agreement, we need to preserve the totality of relationships it sets out. Nothing we agree with the EU under Article 50 should risk a return to a hard border or threaten the delicate constitutional and political arrangements underpinned by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
The second step is to create an option to extend the implementation period as an alternative to the backstop. I have not committed to extending the implementation period. I do not want to extend the implementation period and I do not believe that extending it will be necessary. I see any extension, or being in any form of backstop, as undesirable. By far the best outcome for the UK, Ireland and the EU is that our future relationship is agreed and in place by 1 January 2021. I have every confidence that it will be and the European Union has said that it will show equal commitment to this timetable, but the impasse we are trying to resolve is about the insurance policy if this does not happen.
What I am saying is that if by the end of 2020 our future relationship is not quite ready, the proposal is that the UK would be able to make a sovereign choice between the UK-wide customs backstop and a short extension of the implementation period. There are some limited circumstances in which it could be argued that an extension to the implementation period might be preferable, if we were certain it was only for a short time. For example, a short extension to the implementation period would mean only one set of changes for businesses at the point we move to the future relationship. In any such scenario, we would have to be out of this implementation period well before the end of this Parliament.
The third step is to ensure that were we to need either of these insurance policies—whether the backstop or a short extension to the implementation period—we could not be kept in either arrangement indefinitely. We would not accept a position in which the UK, having negotiated in good faith an agreement which prevents a hard border in Northern Ireland, none the less finds itself locked into an alternative, inferior arrangement against our will.
The fourth step is for the Government to deliver the commitment we have made to ensure full continued access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal market. Northern Ireland’s businesses rely heavily on trade with their largest market—Great Britain—and we must protect this in any scenario. Let us remember that all of these steps are about insurance policies that no one in the UK or the EU wants or expects to use. So we cannot let this become the barrier to reaching the future partnership we all want to see. We have to explore every possible option to break the impasse, and that is what I am doing.
When I stood in Downing Street and addressed the nation for the first time, I pledged that the Government I lead will not be driven by the interests of the privileged few, but by ordinary working families. That is what guides me every day in these negotiations. Before any decision, I ask: how do I best deliver the Brexit that the British people voted for? How do I best take back control of our money, borders and laws? How do I best protect jobs and make sure nothing gets in the way of our brilliant entrepreneurs and small businesses? And how do I best protect the integrity of our precious United Kingdom and protect the historic progress we have made in Northern Ireland?
If doing those things means I get difficult days in Brussels, then so be it. The Brexit talks are not about my interests; they are about the national interest—and the interests of the whole of our United Kingdom. Serving our national interest will demand that we hold our nerve through these last stages of the negotiations, the hardest part of all. It will mean not giving in to those who want to stop Brexit with a politicians’ vote, with politicians telling the people they got it wrong the first time and should try again. And it will mean focusing on the prize that lies before us: the great opportunities that we can open up for our country when we clear these final hurdles in the negotiations. That is what I am working to achieve, and I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, first I concur with the comments about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. It is important that we understand exactly what has happened, and also why the truth is having to be so painfully extracted. This obviously has implications for our future relationship, and the Government will have to be clear at some point about what action they will take.
On the substance of the summit, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, although the top lines were already well known following Downing Street’s pre-briefing to the press. I can understand why the Prime Minister may have been informed by her Chief Whip that an advance operation was needed before she rose to her feet in Parliament. However, pre-briefing such a significant Statement, purely for the sake of internal party management, goes totally against the procedures that govern this House.
We understand that this is a difficult week for the Prime Minister, and I am sure that I am not alone in the House in being shocked and appalled by comments from—perhaps wisely—unnamed Conservative MPs. They spoke of the PM having to “bring her own noose” and made obscenely offensive comments about knives and stabbing the Prime Minister. Few of us are impressed with the Prime Minister’s negotiations, but such comments go way beyond what is reasonable or rational. If bullying in Parliament is to be rooted out, it must apply to everyone. As a House, I am sure we are agreed that we totally condemn such comments and if, as has been reported, the names of those responsible are known to others, they must face the consequences of their unacceptable behaviour.
Before turning to Brexit, I welcome the other conclusions relating to migration, internal security and external relations. It is vital that swift progress is made on illegal migration. We saw tension between member states at the June summit, leading to the important acknowledgement that this is a challenge not just for any single EU country but for Europe as a whole.
Those noble Lords who watched the BBC2 programme “Mediterranean with Simon Reeve” last night will have seen one particular interview with a young migrant who had sought refuge in Europe, but got as far as the Med. I think he said he had known no peace since he was five years old, and he had a level of despair and sadness rarely seen in one so young. Until we have left the EU’s institutions, our MEPs and Ministers should continue to offer their expertise and exercise their influence to shape an effective and a compassionate response. [Interruption.] I think that was an echo of the need for compassionate and effective response. I hope the Leader of the House will confirm that the UK Government intend to do just that.
On internal security, we welcome the EU leaders’ condemnation of the cyberattack carried out against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and their calls to increase resilience against such attacks going forward. The conclusions note the need to prevent and respond effectively to radicalisation and terrorism, with full respect to fundamental rights. With the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill now being considered by your Lordships’ House, we all want to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck.
The EU has played a significant role in promoting development in Africa, and it is promising that the conclusions note the importance of maintaining strong levels of co-operation with our African partners. Could the noble Baroness confirm what role, if any, the UK intends to play in the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa and other EU development initiatives post Brexit?
With unseasonal warm weather, and alarming weather reports from across the world, we need to ensure that we are vigilant and robust on tackling climate change. Yet, when the President of the United States asserts that global temperatures could simply “change back again”, we recognise the challenges to ensure we have a fact-based approach to this issue and not allow some to seek refuge in fake news. I welcome the EU’s unequivocal backing of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent special report. I hope that the Government will work closely with EU partners to ensure that December’s COP 24 meeting is a success, and that the Prime Minister will continue to press Mr Trump to reverse his decision on the Paris agreement.
This time last week, following Mr Raab’s unsuccessful trip to Brussels, the Prime Minister sought to reassure her colleagues, and then the country, stating:
“I do not believe that the UK and the EU are far apart”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/18; col. 410.]
When I asked whether the Government were confident that sufficient progress had been made to enable an extraordinary summit next month, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said:
“The Prime Minister is looking to continue negotiations as planned in November”.—[Official Report, 15/10/18; col. 326.]
And yet, although she got the backing of her Cabinet before leaving for Brussels, the President of the European Parliament expressed dismay that the Prime Minister had failed to offer “anything substantially new” on the unresolved issue of the Northern Ireland backstop.
The result? Having scrapped—at the UK Government’s request—their original plans for a detailed discussion on the proposed terms of the future UK-EU relationship, the EU 27 leaders determined that,
“despite intensive negotiations, not enough progress has been achieved”.
Today, we are told by the Prime Minister that there is no need to worry. The line is apparently that 95% of the deal is done, so what is the problem? The Prime Minister may claim that she is calm about the state of the negotiations, but the reports of hastily arranged conference calls with her Cabinet indicate otherwise.
Of course we welcome the news that agreement has been reached on the future status of Gibraltar, that there is now a protocol dealing with the UK’s military presence in Cyprus, and that there is an outline agreement on dispute resolution—although, as we all know, this is dependent on the withdrawal agreement. Nevertheless, we welcome the progress. But we are all too familiar with the problems that remain unresolved.
In an attempt to break the impasse, and recognising the amount of work yet to be undertaken, the Prime Minister seemed to accept the principle of a short extension to the transition period, only to row back at the first sign of trouble from Back-Benchers. Now she talks of “an option to extend” rather than taking the common-sense step of negotiating a permanent customs union. Such an arrangement would avoid the need for the so-called backstop and would then help get that deal over the line.
But at each stage of the negotiations we have found the UK lagging behind the agreed timetable, and the Prime Minister seeking to manage internal party-political divisions. The priority for negotiations has to be the interests of the UK, our citizens and our economy, and time is running out. The Leader of the House said last week that noble Lords,
“do not have to stress … the consciousness of the amount of time we have”,—[Official Report, 15/10/18; col. 326.]
to agree a deal with the EU. But in relation to the border and the backstop, it does have to be stressed. The apparent lack of urgency from the Government should concern us all.
To reassure your Lordships’ House that these matters are in hand, can the noble Baroness confirm when she expects the Cabinet to agree—and this is an agreement which lasts longer than the paper it is printed on—a new position in relation to Northern Ireland? How will that position be communicated to parliamentarians who are concerned about the future status of the Belfast agreement, and the need to ensure that there is no hard border? Could she also confirm whether the UK Government will still seek an extraordinary summit in November, even if it is later than originally planned?
Finally, I return to an issue I have raised on a number of occasions, most recently last week. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her written response since she did not have the answer to hand at the time. But her letter to me, my noble friend Lord Foulkes and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of 18 October does not take us any further. She confirms that the citizens’ rights section of the withdrawal agreement will,
“protect the ability of UK nationals in the EU … to continue their lives broadly as they do today”.
However, my question was specifically about onward movement, which will not now be dealt with in the withdrawal treaty but as part of the future relationship. Could she clarify when the 1 million Brits living in other European countries can expect certainty on their future mobility rights? This is not just about ensuring that our UK citizens do not lose any of the rights that they currently enjoy; it is essential for business planning for those companies that operate across EU borders. They need the certainty that is so sadly lacking on this issue. The Prime Minister referred to the brilliant entrepreneurs and small businesses in her Statement, but it is they that need that certainty. If this forms part of our future relationship will the Government stop blocking the publication of the EU’s proposed political declaration?
I hope that the noble Baroness can respond to these questions, but she needs to understand that time is running out and that the nation remains concerned.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I begin by associating myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the unacceptable use of inflammatory language in the Commons. At this point in our national life, matters are inflammatory enough without use of words such as “knives” and “nooses” about a Prime Minister. I hope that the person who used that terminology is unmasked and suffers the consequences that he or she richly deserves.
Before getting on to Brexit, it is instructive to read how the Government dealt with the two other big issues that faced the summit last week and have faced us subsequently. On the Khashoggi incident, the Government have taken a joint initiative in condemning what has happened and wanting further information with Germany and France—not with President Trump, but Germany and France, our closest allies.
Secondly, when it comes to the question of reining in chemical weapons, the Prime Minister takes credit for the fact that the Foreign Minister has agreed with his French counterpart a new EU sanctions regime. We have had this before. What does the noble Baroness think the future of that sanctions regime and that process of agreeing joint sanctions regimes on such important issues will be after 29 March next year?
We are then told that 95% of the withdrawal agreement and its protocols are now settled. Noble Lords will remember this document produced by the Commission six or seven months ago: the draft withdrawal agreement. The bits in green were agreed. As one flicks through it, one finds page after page of green bits. There were some bits that were not agreed and those have been reduced, but as we know it is not the volume of what has been agreed, but the substance of what has and has not been agreed. The fact that the difficult 5% remains unagreed should give nobody any reassurance that agreement is near.
According to the Prime Minister, four steps are now needed to break the impasse:
“First, we must make the commitment to a temporary UK-EU joint customs territory legally binding”.
Before she uttered that sentence, she said, two paragraphs higher up:
“The EU argue that they cannot give a legally binding commitment to a UK-wide customs arrangement in the Withdrawal Agreement”.
So what powers of persuasion and legislative sleight of hand or ability does the noble Baroness think the Prime Minister will be able to produce to persuade the EU that something it says is legally impossible is actually the basis of an agreement within the next very short time?
The second step is the option to extend the implementation period. The argument then is that you have two options, one of which the EU says is legally impossible and the other an extension. The UK then says that it wishes to be able to make a sovereign choice between those two. So ultimately it will say to the EU, “Thanks very much for agreeing these two things, but actually we’ve decided we’re going to go for X”. Why should it agree to that? Why is it our sovereign choice? This flies in the face of negotiations and common sense.
The third thing is to ensure that both or either of those options are not potentially permanent arrangements. This gets us back to the philosophical discussion we had last week about the meaning of “temporary”. The Prime Minister says that she wants it to be temporary so that the UK does not find itself,
“locked into an alternative, inferior arrangement against our will”.
But the truth is that it is not an inferior arrangement that she is scared of but of being locked into something that a future, non-Tory Government thinks is a superior arrangement and therefore stays in the customs union in perpetuity. She and her colleagues want “temporary” to be defined to mean “before the next general election”, which is a novel definition of the word.
The fourth step, to ensure that Northern Ireland has full continued access to the UK internal market, is not a step at all. It is simply a consequence of steps one and two.
In her conclusion, the Prime Minister talks about the challenges ahead. She says that, whatever it means and whatever will happen, we must not give in,
“to those who want to stop Brexit with a politicians vote”.
What she means by a politicians’ vote is actually a vote by the people to have a say on any deal she reaches. We have this marvellous Alice in Wonderland definition that a vote by the people is a politicians’ vote but a vote by the politicians is a people’s vote even if, as is now the case, she and the Government Front Bench know that the people say they want such a vote. This is the kind of Alice in Wonderland use of language that surely the Prime Minister will not get away with much longer.
However, we can be reassured that, whatever she says about not having a vote on the outcome, she is planning for it. We know that the Government have been conducting war-games about how any referendum on a Brexit deal can be conducted. They are to be congratulated on that. Could the Leader of the House confirm that the starting point for the timetable against which those war-games are being conducted is the 22 weeks required for a referendum to be held, set out in UCL’s Constitution Unit’s recent report on the mechanics of such a referendum, not the 12 months recently suggested in your Lordships’ House by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan? Could she give an undertaking that the outcome of this planning will be published, just as the various notices have been published against no deal, in the interest of transparency and good government?
The key final point is what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said: what happens next? We do not know how a deal can be struck within the Cabinet, but what is the prospect of a November summit? It is probably very small. But, closer to home, what is the prospect of this House discussing the Trade Bill before Christmas? What has happened to the backlog of all the other Brexit legislation, of which there is no sign? What has happened to the 800 statutory instruments— 200 of which require affirmative resolutions—that this House has to debate and approve in the next four months? Could the Leader of the House give us some indication of the flow of business and timetable that she believes will now follow?
This Statement, like all the previous ones, has enabled the Prime Minister to survive another day, but when she speaks of difficult days ahead she knows that Brussels is the least of her problems. Her problems are in her own party, and this Statement does nothing to make one think she has a clue how to resolve them.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. In particular, I thank them for their strong condemnation of some of the alleged language that was reported in the press about the Prime Minister over the weekend.
In relation to Mr Khashoggi, the House will be aware that there will be a Statement tomorrow so we will be able to set out some further details there. As the Statement in the Commons made clear, we condemn his killing in the strongest possible terms. The Saudi statement leaves a number of questions around his death unanswered—in particular, the claim that he died in a fight simply does not amount to a credible explanation. Perhaps we can go into a bit more detail in the Statement tomorrow about actions going forward.
On the noble Baroness’s comments on migration, I confirm that we will, of course, continue to exercise all the influence we can to ensure that migrants are treated fairly and compassionately. She also asked about the COP24 summit in December. I reassure her that we are fully committed to a robust deal on the detailed framework needed to implement the Paris Agreement. As she will be aware, the conference will be focused on the development of a rulebook to support the implementation of the Paris Agreement, which we continue to fully support. The other major outcome will be from the first phase of the agreement’s five-year cycle to review global efforts and provide direction for future ambition.
I hope I reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord when I say that the Government are working with urgency to address the outstanding issues relating to Northern Ireland. It has been very clear in the Statement that I made this week and last that this is on the top of our agenda—there is no question at all. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU has said:
“The Prime Minister has rightly refused to rule out considering different approaches … as an alternative to the backstop”,
in order to make sure we can break this impasse. That is why we are working to create this new option—to extend the implementation period—and working further with the EU on the UK-EU joint customs territory proposals at pace.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the November summit. That was an idea suggested by the European Council president. We remain committed, as I said last week, to continuing negotiations at pace in November. Donald Tusk, after the Council meeting, said he stood ready to convene an EU Council on Brexit if further progress was made. We will continue to work with our EU counterparts to make sure that we can achieve that goal.
The noble Lord asked about sanctions. He will be aware, as a result of the sanctions legislation that passed through this House, that we will enact our own sanctions regime when we leave the EU but, for the time that we remain a member, we will continue to encourage European partners to extend their diplomatic capabilities.
In relation to onward movement, I am afraid I can only reiterate what I said in my letter to the noble Baroness: we share her frustration. We have been clear from the start of negotiations that onward movement for UK nationals resident in the EU was a key priority. We raised this with the EU in the first phase of negotiations but they were not ready to discuss the issue and wanted to wait for negotiations on our future relationship. We tried and we have put it forward but we can only negotiate when two parties are negotiating. I share her frustration but I am afraid I cannot go further than what I have said today and what I put in the letter. Of course, I will update the House and the noble Baroness as and when things have moved on.
I am afraid that I will have to disappoint the noble Lord—the Government will not be holding a second referendum. We have been very clear about that. We had a people’s vote in 2016—the largest democratic exercise this country has ever had—and we will not frustrate the result of that referendum.
The noble Lord asked about the flow of business in this House. We will continue to work with the usual channels to make sure that this House has the opportunity to scrutinise legislation and SIs as a matter of course. We are very pleased that the work of the sifting committee has already started and I am very grateful to members of the committees for that work. We understand the frustration in this House. We understand that we have to ensure that Parliament has a correct amount of time to look at these issues and we will continue our best endeavours, through the usual channels, to make sure the House has the chance to raise the issues that it wishes to raise.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Leader of the House reply to two precise questions? On the Irish backstop, the Statement makes it very clear that, in the view of the Government, a possible extension of the transitional period—known in rather Orwellian terms as the implementation phase—would be an alternative to having an insurance backstop. Has there been any indication from any of the 27 member states or the Commission that they could accept that as an alternative—rather than as an addition—to having the backstop which in all their Statements the Government say is necessary?
Secondly, will the progress that has been announced on Gibraltar, the sovereign base areas and dispute settlement relate only to the 19 months of the transitional period and not to those matters being settled in the new relationship? Will she please confirm that that is the case? If so, it is, frankly, a fairly modest step forward—welcome, but modest nevertheless. On dispute settlement, I am sure she would agree that the European Court of Justice will continue to produce rulings throughout the transitional period—that is what is meant by the dispute settlement matter in the transitional period being agreed.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The protocols in relation to Gibraltar and the sovereign base areas will be part of the international treaty which we will sign with the withdrawal agreement and the implementation period. The long-term future relationship will supersede that once we have that partnership, so we will obviously continue those discussions, but it is excellent that we have progressed to this point.
On the noble Lord’s first point, I am afraid that I cannot give any further information about the negotiations that are going on. We have been very clear that we are working with the EU to come up with a solution to the Northern Ireland issue and the Prime Minister is clearly in this Statement setting out two options that we are pursuing.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the progress that has been made in the talks. I will ask my noble friend about the two options relating to Northern Ireland, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. On the question of the temporary UK-EU customs union, how could this be made temporary? Do the Government have in mind an end date which, I understand, was ruled out by Monsieur Barnier? Without an end date, how on earth could this be made temporary? Secondly, on the other option of extending the implementation period, will she say something about the cost? How much would that mean we would have to pay to the EU budget for each year that it was extended? If we are in for a few months only—as I know the Prime Minister hopes we will be—will we pay a full year’s subscription or just a proportion?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
On my noble friend’s second point, the length and cost of any extension will be subject to the negotiations that are going on now on the drawing up of this option. On his first question about the temporary nature of the backstop, the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear: this cannot be a permanent situation. Obviously, a date is one option, but there are other ways in which this may be triggered in order to ensure it is temporary. Again, as we are getting down to the fine detail of these two options, those are the kind of issues that will be discussed and negotiated between ourselves and our EU partners.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, is not the Prime Minister’s claim that the deal is 95% done an utter misrepresentation? Is it not the truth that, because of the Brexiteer extremism in her party, by far the biggest issue, as it always has been—the Irish border—is still unresolved? Is it not also the case that her claim is designed to make everybody think that Brexit is done and dusted, when in reality it is merely the terms of divorce? Even if she does achieve a fudged agreement with Brussels soon, that will only be a prelude to years and years of immensely more difficult negotiations on our future trading relationships, in which we will again be asking for the impossible—all the benefits of trading into the single market and using the customs union, with none of the obligations—with the Irish border still the Achilles heel.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that in fact at the Council there was a lot of good will towards the UK and recognition around the table that in the past weeks there has been huge progress in agreeing the withdrawal agreement. The fact that I have made two Statements in the last two weeks discussing Northern Ireland in some detail shows that we are not hiding the fact that we still have an impasse in this situation. The Statements have been quite clear about that. What we are absolutely committed to, along with our EU partners, and particularly our Irish partners, is finding a way through, because as we said in the Statement this one issue is outstanding. We want a withdrawal agreement and an implementation period and we want a strong and positive relationship going forward. So I can assure the noble Lord that we are not taking things lightly; we are absolutely committed, with our partners, to cracking this very difficult nut, as he rightly says. We will do that and we will get a good deal with the EU, which is what we are intending to do.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, it is surely not good enough for the Leader of the House to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that she cannot answer his question. You do not need to be an insider in the negotiations to realise that it is complete nonsense to say that an extension of the transition period is an alternative to the existence of the backstop, whether it is Northern Ireland-specific or UK-wide. They are apples and pears, very obviously, and I want to press her on this point. It is a longer time, surely, to find a permanent relationship that makes the backstop redundant. Why do the Government continue to create smoke and mirrors, which presumably is for internal consumption in her own party but does not give honest, real explanations?
Secondly, if the Government want the temporary customs arrangement to be written into the withdrawal agreement as legally binding, how is that commensurate with their professed desire to maintain the ability to make a sovereign choice to exit from the temporary customs arrangement? If it is legally binding in the withdrawal agreement, as the Government want, how can you make a sovereign choice to abandon it?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid that I do not think it is appropriate for me to discuss the details of the negotiation. I am sorry that the noble Baroness disagrees, but we are at a crucial time and I do not think that my making statements from the Dispatch Box about some of these delicate issues will be particularly helpful. We want to achieve a deal, and I hope she understands that and would want to help me ensure that I play my part by not saying things that would get in the way of a good negotiation and a good outcome.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Will the Minister explain how our commitment to maintain full alignment with the rules of the internal market and the customs union, which now or in the future support north/south co-operation, the all-Ireland economy and the protection of the 1998 agreement, can be discharged by a short extension of the implementation period? That is a timeless commitment. Can the Minister quote any precedent for an EU negotiation of a wide-ranging association, including a trade relationship, with any third country that has been completed, ratified and come into force within three years?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I remind noble Lords that we do not intend to use either the backstop option or the implementation period extension. These are insurance policies. We are committed to achieving, and we expect to achieve, our new relationship with the EU by the beginning of January 2021. These are insurance policies, not things we intend to happen. The reason we are confident about achieving a good deal with the EU is that we are in the unique position of starting with the same rules and being in the same place: we are not coming from different situations, as was the case in other deals the EU put together. That is why we are confident, starting from being together, that we can come up with a good deal going forward that works for both of us.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, as we pray in this House each day for the tranquillity of the realm, would it be worth sending a message to our more excitable and rather impatient Brexiteers, reminding them that it took 10 to 15 years for us to join the European Community, as it was then? We have been working together in a system with them for 46 years and therefore it is pretty likely that it will take a number of years for us to untangle all the arrangements we have made and withdraw in an orderly and sensible way. Is not the word that we really need, and which is missing in a great deal of this discussion at the moment, patience: an understanding that these things, if done properly, need to be handled very carefully and with great patience?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank my noble friend and I entirely agree. I am sure that any of us would be grateful for his prayers to support us.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, on Saturday I was among the 700,000 people who marched through London to protest about what is happening and demand a second vote. Alongside me were two people who had voted “out” in the referendum and are now convinced that they were misled. Given that the Government are not prepared to hold a second vote of the people, how are the opinions of those people going to be taken into account?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Of course, I respect the views of the people the noble Lord spoke to, but as I have said and as we have made clear, we had a vote in 2016 in which 17.4 million people voted to leave. We will be respecting that vote. We will be achieving a great deal with our European partners to ensure a strong relationship going forward, but we have had a people’s vote and we will now respect their wishes.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, may I say to my noble friend that in respect of the meaningful vote that Parliament has been promised, no vote will be meaningful unless it enables the House of Commons to decide to stay in the European Union on existing terms, or to require the holding of a further referendum on the terms that it identifies. I simply do not agree with the Prime Minister’s use of the following phrase:
“politicians telling the people that they got it wrong the first time and should try again”.
That is not a proper assessment of the people’s vote.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As my noble friend will be aware, the vote on the deal will be one for the House of Commons to take, and the Government’s commitments are enshrined by law in the withdrawal Act.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness agree that the only basis on which the customs union could be temporary as a means of dealing with the Northern Ireland border issue is if the Government succeed in persuading our EU partners that their proposals in the White Paper for a joint customs territory are feasible? Can she report on the progress of those discussions in Brussels? Have not our partners dismissed this proposal as completely unfeasible? Therefore, the Government face a very tough choice in securing the peace in Northern Ireland through a permanent customs union or pursuing what many of us on this side believe is the fantasy of an independent trade policy and a hard Brexit with a hard border.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As the Statement made clear, when we put forward our proposal for a temporary joint customs territory, the EU was initially sceptical, but it is now actively working with us on our proposal. So positions and discussions in negotiations change, and we move forward together. We have been very clear that we are committed to ensuring that our future economic partnership provides a solution to the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland. The circumstances we are talking about are in the unlikely event that we do not reach that agreement and have our new relationship in place by January 2021. That is what we are working towards and what we believe we will be able to achieve.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, no doubt inadvertently, the Leader did not respond to the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Do the Government accept that during the period of implementation or transition—call it what you will—the United Kingdom will be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ and that that jurisdiction will also last for as long as any extension to that period of transition?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Well, yes, because we have already accepted that and been clear about that in relation to the implementation period.
Lord Soley (Lab)
In the near future we are likely to have an agreement—good, bad or indifferent, we wait to see. There will then be this implementation period, but I take the same view as that taken by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I think: there is no way that this complex political and economic arrangement between the UK and the EU is going to be sorted out in just a couple of years. This is going to be work in progress for quite a few years to come, and I still do not understand from the Government the sorts of structures they have in mind to ensure that the UK and the EU stay close together politically and economically, because it is in their interests to do so. Picking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the common security and defence policy will continue; we will have no say on how that is used but we are indicating that our forces will stay involved. I am not asking for an answer to that issue, but there are many issues of that type. I need—and I think the House needs—some idea of the structures we are looking at beyond the implementation period that will allow us to ensure that we have a continuing good agreement. Is it a Joint Committee or is it something bigger?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord will be aware that alongside the withdrawal and implementation Act and treaty there will be a future partnership or future framework document setting out where discussions have got to about the future relationship. That will be the first time the noble Lord will see where we have got to in that discussion. That will then be the basis of the negotiation discussions, once we have agreed the withdrawal agreement and implementation period, to take forward that relationship. On the structure and scope of the documents, some of the things we have mentioned that we have started to make good progress on will be obvious from that document. That will then be worked on and will be the basis of the future partnership that we will look to have by 2021.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Does the Leader recognise that a prolonged period of uncertainty in which many of the complex details have not been decided will be disastrous for the private and public sectors across this country? I have been briefed in the past week by people from two of Britain’s leading universities on the desperate uncertainty they have over future access to European research networks and research funding and visas for foreign academics and their wives and husbands who come to this country, and the likelihood that the Home Office visa system, which is presently close to breaking down, will break down unless this is clarified fairly quickly. If we have an agreement now which is loose and short, these details will remain uncertain. Can we be guaranteed that, before a lot of these things are swept away as we formally leave, there is much more certainty on the detail across different sectors than the Government have yet begun to talk about?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Of course we are mindful of uncertainty, which is why we are working flat out to ensure that we come up with a suitable solution to the Northern Ireland issue, which is the one issue that is still outstanding in relation to the withdrawal agreement and implementation period. The very reason we agreed an implementation period was to give that certainty over two years and to give time for us to ensure that we have the future agreement in place and that we can begin our new relationship in January 2021. That has been at the heart of our approach throughout these negotiations.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
The Lord Privy Seal declined to give us an answer, one way or the other, on whether or not civil servants have been war-gaming arrangements for a future referendum. However, can she tell us—this she should be able to answer—whether she, her officials, the usual channels and the parliamentary authorities in this House have been war-gaming how this House will deal with the flow of legislation and orders that must be put through? Can she give us a categorical assurance that this House will not breach its existing arrangements and Standing Orders—that we will not be required to sit on Fridays and Saturdays to carry through the burden of legislation?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I think I was clear in relation to the second referendum when I said that we will not be having a second referendum and therefore that work is not being done in relation to that. I can certainly assure the noble Lord that we will be working—and have worked—extremely hard with the usual channels to ensure that we give your Lordships the chance to scrutinise legislation. Obviously, changes that need to be made will have to come to the Floor of the House and therefore the House will decide. I am not going to make false promises to the noble Lord about what may or may not be possible. I do not think any of us wants to work 24 hours a day—well, some Members do but others of us would like quite like to have a bit of time outside the House, much as we all enjoy being together. We will do our very best to work within our usual situation, but I am not going to make promises that I cannot keep. What I can say is that this will be discussed fully with the usual channels, and where decisions need the view of the House, the House will have the chance to make up its mind on whether or not it wants to agree with government suggestions.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Monday 22nd October 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 View all Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 117-III(a) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the third marshalled list (PDF) - (19 Oct 2018)
Baroness Barker
“23(1) An authorisation ceases to have effect—(a) at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day it first had effect,(b) at the end of such shorter period determined by the responsible body at the time it determines that the conditions for authorisation are met,(c) on such earlier date than the date given by paragraph (a) as the responsible body may from time to time determine,(d) if the authorisation is renewed in accordance with paragraph 37, at the end of the renewal period, or(e) when a suspension comes to an end as described in paragraph 41(2)(b).(2) An authorisation also ceases to have effect if, at any time, the responsible body believes or ought reasonably to suspect— (a) that the cared-for person has, or has regained, capacity to consent to the arrangements which are authorised,(b) that the cared-for person is no longer of unsound mind, or(c) that the arrangements are no longer necessary and proportionate.(3) But an authorisation does not cease to have effect for the reason described in sub-paragraph (2)(a) if—(a) the capacity assessment which was relied on in determining that the condition in paragraph 14(a) is met states—(i) that the cared-for person’s capacity to consent to arrangements is likely to fluctuate, and(ii) that any periods during which the person is likely to have capacity to consent is likely to last only for a short period of time, and(b) the responsible body reasonably believes that the gaining or regaining of capacity will last only for a short period of time.(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe a definition of “fluctuate” and “short” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i), (ii), and (b) above.(5) In a case where—(a) an authorisation relates to arrangements which provide for the cared-for person to reside in, or to receive care or treatment at, a specified place, and(b) at any time, the responsible body believes or ought reasonably to suspect that there is a conflicting decision about the cared-for person residing in, or receiving care or treatment at, that place,the authorisation ceases to have effect in so far as it relates to those arrangements.(6) There is a conflicting decision for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b) if there is a valid decision of—(a) a donee of a lasting power of attorney granted by the cared-for person, or(b) a deputy appointed for the cared-for person by the court,that the cared-for person should not reside in, or (as the case may be) receive care or treatment at, the specified place.(7) If at any time an authorisation relates to arrangements which conflict with requirements arising under legislation relating to mental health, the authorisation ceases to have effect in so far as it relates to those arrangements.”
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to be the first speaker on our third day in Committee. We are under some time pressure this evening because of earlier business. But, having spent yet another weekend going through the Bill, trying to understand its full intent, I have to say that it really is a shockingly bad Bill. Therefore, whatever pressure may be brought to bear, we should spend adequate time going through all the amendments before us. I will not speak at great length and I know that other noble Lords will be very disciplined, but there are some very serious issues and the potential for harming some of the most vulnerable people in our society if we get this wrong is great. Therefore, I make no apology for initiating what I hope will be a series of quite searching debates.
Amendments 55, 56 and 58 stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Tyler. They deal with one of the most serious issues at the heart of this legislation—although you would not really know that just from reading it—which is the interaction with the Mental Health Act. I do not need to repeat what was said at earlier stages about the interaction of the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act because there are many people here who understand that and have discussed it as many times as I have. But I will say one thing as a result of contributions made by some noble Lords last week about Sir Simon Wessely’s review of the Mental Health Act. People reading the Hansard of our debate last week might well have come away with the understanding that, if a person has mental health issues, they are dealt with by the Mental Health Act, and if a person lacks capacity, they are automatically dealt with by the Mental Capacity Act. But that is not true, in two particular ways.
One is that a person may have a mental health condition but may also have a physical condition, and the question is: what happens about their capacity to make that decision? It is not a decision covered by the Mental Health Act, even though they may be residing in a secure unit. Secondly, there are some people who are wrongly detained under the Mental Health Act: increasing numbers of older people with Alzheimer’s are wrongly diagnosed and detained. Therefore, as was recognised when the mental capacity legislation was initially developed, it is very important that we get these two pieces of legislation and their interaction right. That will explain to the Minister why, when we had the initial briefing on this from civil servants, some of us were rather astonished that there was no mention of the Mental Health Act at all until we brought it up.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I must advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 56 for reasons of pre-emption.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lady Barker said about this important set of amendments. Briefly, they look at the interaction between the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act, which has not been properly thought through at all in how the Bill has been brought forward. The amendments focus in particular on people with fluctuating conditions. We have had a bit of discussion about such people but not nearly enough to understand what the real implications will be for people who may have a severe mental illness that fluctuates. They may have a range of other physical conditions requiring treatment and care. There may be times when they are in a position to give consent to treatment and times when they are not. We really need to think much more about how that is to be dealt with in the new system.
My concern, if I may summarise it, is that this complex interaction between the two Acts will result in a two-tier system, with a considerable imbalance in rights and safeguards between the regimes of the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act. To pick out one example, I understand that under the Mental Capacity Act everyone is entitled to make a legally binding advance decision to refuse various future medical treatments, but that decision can be overridden under the Mental Health Act in most circumstances. It is complicated. There are people covered by both Acts; it is not a question of having the Mental Health Act and people covered by it over here and having the Mental Capacity Act and people covered by that there.
We really need to think this through and satisfy ourselves that any new system deals with that and, frankly, makes the most of the opportunity to streamline these regimes, in particular to take account of people who are covered by both. I would be particularly pleased if the Minister, in responding, would say something about the needs of people who are severely affected by mental health issues and whose capacity may fluctuate, and about how that has been taken into account in the drafting of the Bill.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I feel that I should contribute to this debate although I have no speech prepared because, in the discussion with Sir Simon Wessely that I referred to last week, I challenged him about this issue. I asked what we were doing by debating this Bill before his review came out. He was clear and while I cannot say what he is proposing, maybe I can indicate the sort of areas he is looking at. These may help to illuminate the clear differences in certain ways between the two sets of debates and legislation.
For example, he is looking at the role of the Ministry of Justice in relation to people under restriction orders. There are specific mental illness issues in that area. He is looking at how community treatment orders operate—there might be less use of such orders—and how detentions in hospital for people with psychotic illnesses operate, and so on. Those areas are, in general, probably quite distinctive to the Mental Health Act. The bit where I feel there really is a potential overlap is in the area of mental health tribunals, which I will raise when we come on to deprivation of liberty concerns in the context of specific domestic situations. I will have a proposal to make then. I will not go into it here, as it would not be appropriate.
Sir Simon Wessely’s position is clear: he feels that the Mental Health Act needs reform and I think he will have very interesting proposals to make about that. We also all agree that the DoLS system needs reform and we are discussing how that should be done. What he is doing and what noble Lords are trying to do here are both quite complex sets of reforms. Sir Simon Wessely’s view—I hope that he would agree with me—is that these two sets of reforms need to be in place for quite a period. He talked about a decade, actually. There is also the Northern Ireland situation; there are proposals for some bringing together of these things there. There is of course no Government in Northern Ireland but Sir Simon Wessely wants that Northern Ireland Government to be formed and for them to be the pilot of all this and see how that works over a period of years. We would then come forward with some proposals, as and if appropriate, for bringing these two pieces of legislation together.
I hope that I have represented Sir Simon Wessely properly. It is important for us all to be aware that we do not have the support of the person in charge of the review of the Mental Health Act when we say, “Come on, what are we doing by having this first? Surely it should all be done at once”.
Baroness Barker
I want to make it clear to the noble Baroness that I am not talking about bringing these two pieces of legislation together. I know some people have suggested that that should be done, but I am not asking for that. I am simply suggesting that this legislation, which makes a substantial change to what has been the basis of decision-making about best interests on the basis of harm to self, is now going to include harm to others. We were told back in the summer, when the Minister sent us a letter, that the Government were waiting for the outcome of the Mental Health Act review to see what the impact would be. We are now being told, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, confirmed, that that basis of decision-making is changed by this legislation. It is linked to the necessary and proportionate assessment that people will have to make. I think that is a major change that will perhaps result in the detention of quite a number of people. I do not think it is unreasonable for the Government to wait until Sir Simon Wessely has published his report to ensure that the two pieces of legislation are not drifting further apart.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I am the world’s greatest pragmatist in this matter. I am very sympathetic to what the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler, are saying. This Bill is by no means perfect. It has huge gaps and we would not have started from here, but the reality is that this Bill will be with us for the rest of the autumn and I believe that Sir Simon Wessely’s report will be submitted to the Government around 12 December, so it is likely to come before Third Reading and before we finish the Bill. We will be able to see if there are great big gaps. I do not think the two things will overlap very much. We might be helped out, particularly on amendments on advanced directives, and in that context we can perhaps make ourselves closer to what Sir Simon Wessely recommends, but I do not think there is anything to address, except that the current Bill is not working. We have all those people waiting for an assessment who will never be assessed. We need some legislation in place. There is some urgency. I know we would like a perfect Bill, but we are not going to get one. What we need is an implementable Bill which makes assessments doable for people who need them and so that we can get some process in place. The Bill is not perfect. We would not start from here, but we have this Bill and we should continue with it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I shall continue on the theme that my noble friend Lady Murphy has set out. Last week, I chaired the National Mental Capacity Forum leadership group. One of the people there said that:
“While there was an initial knee-jerk reaction amongst care providers and the local council, if you consider the”.
liberty protection safeguards,
“in more detail you quickly come to understand that it is actually quite an innovative solution”,
because there is such a backlog and so much difficulty in trying to get anything in place.
I am concerned that we are trying to draw clear lines between different types of illnesses and conditions when it is pretty impossible to do so. There are mental health conditions that impair your capacity, even though you may be compliant with treatment, there are physical illnesses that result in impaired capacity, and there are illnesses—Lewy body dementia is one of them—where part of the illness means that you may be a risk to other people. Huntington’s disease is similar and a horrible disease to have. Trying to draw clear lines between those different groups is difficult.
I looked at the amendment and for a definition of “fluctuate” and “short”. I tried to think how I would define “fluctuate” or “short” in a clinical context, and I could not because “short” might be short to some people and long to others and fluctuation can be all kinds of directions and with different degrees of severity. The difficulty we are grappling with here is that we are trying to write something in legislation that will be literally black and white: black words on a white page. The people we are dealing with are incredibly individual and have very different needs. That is why, returning to our previous debate, the stress on wishes and feelings and on consulting people who know the person becomes incredibly important. We will go on to talk about ways that people can call for external scrutiny because, if they care about the person, they need to be able to do that.
Baroness Barker
I have to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Mark Neary had to resort to the law, not to a code of practice, to get his son out of a place where he should never have been detained. We need to have further discussions about what needs to be in the Bill and the role of regulation and the code of practice. I think she has a fundamentally wrong take on this. This is about legal protection for very vulnerable people. That sometimes has to be in a brief outline in law. It has to be stated in the Bill that a person has to be spoken to face to face. We can then go on to put a load of stuff in the code of practice about how we do that.
To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, I think this is a terrible Bill containing huge holes and some real problems. If the Government take the tack they took last time, we may be able to improve it substantially, but we are in danger of putting one bureaucracy in place of another bureaucracy, and the only difference between the two is that there are far fewer protections for the most vulnerable people. We would be somewhat negligent to go ahead on that basis. I cannot approach the Bill in that way.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler, for tabling this amendment. I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about the state of the Bill. I am rather—“disappointed” may not be quite the right word—surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, who has brought discipline to the House to focus on good legislation and how it should work, is suggesting that we have to have something, so this is it. I really hope that that is not the case and that this Committee will have revealed to the Minister, and particularly to the Bill team, that many elements in the Bill need clarification, need to be changed and can be improved. That is our job, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is highlighting but one of those elements. In fact, the amendment that I am due to talk about next refers to the difficulties that the Bill has brought and the differences between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act.
The last month or so has been very revealing. The Bill was sold to us as something really quite simple that was going to streamline things, get rid of the backlog, save some money and so on, and it really needed only one day in Committee. That is certainly how it was sold to me on these Benches and, I am sure, to other people in the House. In fact, what has happened over the last couple of months is that all the stakeholders and people who are writing to us are saying, “No, this will not do. This Bill does not work. It is dangerous and difficult”. It needs clarification, and these amendments highlight the areas that need it. We are going to move on to other areas that need clarification and which will certainly need amendment. This is an important and legitimate question to ask about the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords—I keep saying “noble Lords” but it has really been noble Baronesses, so I will switch my language—who have both tabled amendments in this group and spoken to them.
Before I come to the substance of the amendments, I shall say two things. First, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that there is an urgency. To use the words of the Local Government Association, “the current system is unable to ensure there is adequate protection for human rights”. That is the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in at the moment.
Secondly, views about the perfection or otherwise of the Bill will vary across the House, but I hope that in the two days of Committee prior to this one I was able to demonstrate that the department and Ministers are absolutely committed to improving the Bill in any way that we can during its passage through Parliament, especially in this House where there are so many experts. I really think we have made some progress. I realise that that will not be enough to satisfy everyone and there is clearly much more to come—care home managers are clearly a big area of work that we need to focus on—but we have made some progress. I encourage noble Lords to continue in that mindset because I think we can reach a good outcome that deals with the fact that, as Age UK says, the system leaves,
“many highly vulnerable older people languishing without any legal protection at all”,
something none of us can accept. We stand ready to undertake that work, as noble Lords know, and I know they do so too.
I turn to the amendments in this group. Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler, outlines the circumstances in which an authorisation ceases to have effect, particularly noting that authorisations should end if they conflict with a valid decision of a court-appointed deputy or a donee of a lasting power of attorney. The amendment also states that an authorisation would not cease to have an effect if a person’s capacity fluctuated, and would create regulation-making powers to define what constitutes fluctuating capacity.
Section 6(6) of the Mental Capacity Act already provides that action cannot be taken that conflicts with a lasting power of attorney or a deputy’s valid decision, and I can confirm that the Bill does not change that. This means that an authorisation can only be given if it is in accordance with a valid decision, so I hope I have provided reassurance on that front.
I can also confirm that if it emerges that an authorisation conflicts with a decision of a donee of a lasting power of attorney or by a court-appointed deputy, a review should be arranged under paragraph 31 of the Schedule. In particular, it will need to be considered if the attorney or deputy has valid and applicable powers to make this decision, and if the deprivation of liberty authorisation continues to be necessary. That means that in the event of such a conflict, the authorisation ceases to have effect. I hope that provides reassurance to the noble Baronesses on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, focused particularly on fluctuating capacity. I agree that an authorisation should not necessarily cease to have effect if a person’s capacity fluctuates and there are short periods of lucidity. That is currently the case under the DoLS system and I can confirm that it will continue under the liberty protections safeguards. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, brought to life, it is very difficult to define either “fluctuating” or “short”, particularly in legislation. For that reason, we do not think regulation-making powers are appropriate; we believe this would be better dealt with through a code of practice, which would allow for more detail and more regular updating but would also allow the use of case studies to bring examples to life. We plan to give much more detailed guidance in the new code of practice, and I reassure noble Lords that we will be working with the sector in order to produce it.
Amendments 56 and 58 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Tyler, relate to the thorny issue of the interaction between mental health and mental capacity legislation. They would mean that an authorisation had effect in relation to arrangements that were not in accordance with mental health requirements. As noble Lords know, mental health requirements are conditions placed on Mental Health Act patients living in the community. Currently, DoLS authorisations no longer have effect if a person is subject to arrangements or conditions under the Mental Health Act and that authorisation would be in conflict. This means that the terms of a DoLS authorisation cannot conflict with those of, for example, Section 17 leave of absences. The Bill has been drafted to reflect the interaction that currently exists between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act.
The review of the Mental Health Act has been mentioned in this debate. The review, chaired by Sir Simon Wessely, has been considering, among other things, the interaction between these two pieces of legislation. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has sincere concerns about the nature of that interaction and about why we are bringing forward this legislation now. My short answer is that urgent reform is needed for the reasons that we have set out, including the quotes that I have given. The contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was helpful, and I have put in my notes that I need to speak to Sir Simon Wessely myself to understand his perspective. However, if I have understood correctly, regardless of the timing of his report, the process of implementing his proposals will take some time to do properly. In our view, it is not right to wait until that has been perfected before we try to deal with many of the issues under consideration in the Bill in the light of the current inefficiencies of the DoLS system. It is for that reason that we want to push ahead. As I have said, I will take it upon myself to speak to Sir Simon Wessely and get a real understanding of his expectations on timing, and to try to understand from his point of view the scale of the interaction between these two pieces of legislation so that we really know what is at stake.
I think the noble Baroness herself said that the amendments are essentially probing. She will know that the effect of them would be that two authorisations could be live at the same time. I am confident that that is not what she is proposing, not least because it would have the perverse effect of requiring people to be in two places at once, so I know she was using this as an opportunity to discuss this question. As I said, it is important that we move ahead for the reasons that we have discussed, notwithstanding that the Government will of course consider incredibly carefully the findings in Sir Simon Wessely’s report and what action is required to implement his recommendations.
On a couple of occasions the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to the consideration of harm to others. I am told that harm to others can be considered under the current DoLS system, so what is proposed is not a change from the current system. However, I will pick that point up with her offline so that we can really get to the bottom of it and ensure complete clarity to a degree that satisfies her. I hope that on that basis, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment, and I look forward to discussing more of these issues throughout the evening.
Baroness Barker
I thank all noble Lords for taking part in that debate, which was a useful exchange of views and information. The Minister is in some difficulty, because the two organisations that he cited are on record as saying that they do not support the Bill in its current form. I remain of the view that we run the risk of attempting to deal with an underfunded, under-resourced system by putting in place another underfunded, under-resourced system which dilutes the protection of vulnerable people.
Ahead of debates on other groupings, I simply ask how many times the Mental Capacity Act and DoLS codes of practice were changed. How many times were they amended? I do not disagree that a code of practice is a good place in which to put examples; I do not think it is a substitute for having well-drafted legislation and regulations—regulations can often be changed.
I will read Hansard with great care, but I reserve the right and hope, with the assistance of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who is not in her place but is equally concerned about these matters, to return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
Baroness Thornton
The amendment would reduce the maximum time for which an individual can be held in detention without renewal from three years back to 12 months. The Bill would allow responsible bodies to renew an authorisation of deprivation of liberty in some cases for up to three years, while simultaneously reducing the safeguards that a renewal process would require. The amendment would shorten that three-year period to a maximum of 12 months.
Why is that important? Tripling the potential length of an authorisation period to three years creates a stark difference between the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act, apart from anything else, and moves away from best practice in other countries. Paired with the new LPS renewal process, which weakens safeguards designed to prevent lengthy detentions, a three-year authorisation will be likely to face legal challenge.
At its core, the new LPS system is intended to safeguard vulnerable people who have been deprived of their liberty on mental capacity grounds. The possibility of a three-year period of detention with limited safeguards gets the balance wrong between safeguarding vulnerable individuals and the desire to reduce the bureaucracy of the system.
Strasbourg case law confirms that a lawful deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Article 5(1)(e) of the ECHR must include both “limits in terms of time” and “continuing clinical assessment of the persistence of a disorder warranting detention”. Therefore, in order to comply with Article 5, any system must contain, first, a provision for the termination of the authorisation after the maximum time has expired and, secondly, an ability to terminate an authorisation before the time limit has expired if the deprivation of liberty is no longer necessary.
A three-year renewal limit is likely to pose problems for responsible bodies, especially in cases concerning conditions such as learning disabilities, acquired brain injuries and other non-degenerative mental impairments. The courts are likely to intervene to interpret those paragraphs concerning renewals—paragraphs 27(a)(ii), 28(b)(ii) and 29(1)(b)—as narrowly as possible. Capacity assessments are time specific, and a three year-old capacity assessment cannot be relied on as accurate evidence for detention. Therefore, we propose to reduce the three years to 12 months.
It is notable that a 2017 paper comparing mental health legislation in five different jurisdictions—Canada, Australia, Scotland, the Republic of Ireland and England and Wales—states that renewal orders vary in different jurisdictions,
“with the time periods for subsequent orders being longer in duration up to a maximum of 12 months, except in Ontario (3 months) and Victoria (6 months)”.
The Law Commission states that a three-year period should be considered only in the context of robust safeguards and constant review. Given the weakening of the safeguards throughout the rest of the Bill, it would be inappropriate to triple the length of time for which an authorisation can last.
In his opening remarks on the Bill, the Minister stated:
“It is essential that the system afford the necessary protections for the most vulnerable people”.—[Official Report, 16/7/18; col. 1061.]
The Bill as currently drafted would in this respect not deliver that protection. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I have three amendments in the group designed to remove any ambiguity about authorisations, in that an authorisation would fall if it partly fell—in other words, if the person’s condition had either improved or changed to such an extent that the plan in place was no longer applicable, even in part, that would warrant a complete review. I accept that it would have to be a light-touch revision, because some things might not have changed, but I am not comfortable with simply allowing it to be reviewed and people to say that these parts of the condition no longer apply.
Amendment 58C is to stress the need for evidence to be supplied to support statements. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with some assurance. That evidence might come from photographs, video recordings of behaviour or whatever. That may be quite different to the written word. I worry that one person’s observed written word may not adequately portray a picture, particularly where the cared-for person has become withdrawn. Someone might interpret that as their being compliant, when actually they may be deeply unhappy. A broader direct recording of the person could be helpful.
I tabled Amendment 62A because I was concerned that the care home manager might be in the process of arranging for adaptations to be made to meet the cared-for person’s needs in line with that person’s wishes and feelings, and that the Bill’s wording does not provide enough flexibility to consider the arrangements to meet the individual’s needs.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Baronesses for tabling their amendments about renewals. I deal first with Amendment 58A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which, as she said, would have the effect of meaning that authorisations cannot be renewed for longer than 12 months. As she pointed out, this would go against the Law Commission’s recommendation, which was that there could be circumstances under which renewals took place for up to three years, particularly following an initial review after up to 12 months and if it was unlikely that there would be a change in the person’s condition.
These three-year renewals are in place so that those who are in a stable condition and unlikely to recover are not subjected to annual assessments. The Bill does provide the safeguard—referred to by the noble Baroness—which ensures that an authorisation would need to be reviewed if there is a change. We would also want to make sure that there are appropriate reviews of arrangements when annual reviews under the Care Act take place. It would be up to the responsible body to set review periods. In care home settings, the care home manager must report to the responsible body on any reviews that have been carried out. As the Bill stands, there are significant safeguards to prevent abuse or lack of care of the vulnerable person.
All that being said, I know how strongly noble Lords and stakeholders feel about this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made a valid point about aligning the review process with the terms set out under the Care Act. I would like to give further thought to this, particularly in the context of the discussions which will be taking place about the proper role of the care home manager. There is clear concern about a proper system of oversight and regular review where responsibility has been devolved to the care home manager. If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will follow that up after this debate.
Amendment 58B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, considers an authorisation ceasing to be renewed if it has lapsed wholly or in part. We will want to give further consideration to that. As discussed earlier in Committee, there are circumstances under which one might be happy for an authorisation to continue after a very minor change. That might be the proper process to align this to, and I want to give further thought to this.
Amendment 58C asks that, when deciding whether to renew authorisations in care home cases, responsible bodies should consider other relevant information, as well as that provided by the care home manager. I can confirm that the Bill does allow responsible bodies to consider information other than that provided by the care home manager. That would, inevitably, be in other formats too. We will set out more detail on that in the code of practice.
Amendment 62A would add the word “arranging” to the scenarios in which the care home manager was required to notify the responsible body that an IMCA should be appointed. The amendment intends to make sure that that happens at the earliest stage, including when the assessments are being arranged. That is what the word “proposing” in the Bill achieves. We are satisfied that the language currently in the Bill means that care home managers would be looking at this issue when they are beginning to propose an authorisation, which is the earliest point at which planning for, arranging or bringing together the assessments would take place. I would be happy to demonstrate what underpins our belief that this is the case. I do understand what the noble Baroness is driving at; it is something which we are trying to achieve.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Baronesses are willing to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for his answer. I am encouraged that we are going to continue the discussion on this issue. Apart from anything else, I will need quite a lot of convincing that the Bill provides the right kind of protections to allow a period of three years, as currently stated.
On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I was reminded when reading the letters the Minister has written to noble Lords, and the record of the previous two days in Committee, that we need to clarify the meaning of “care home manager”. Or is it “care manager”, an expression which he has also used? I do not want an answer to that now, but I put it on the table as one issue which we need to clarify in our discussions and in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(c) for a named person to be in charge of training and revalidation of Approved Mental Capacity Professionals,(d) for honorary contracts with neighbouring local authorities and health bodies as required.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I do not want to detain the Committee by revisiting too much of our debate on day 2, when the Minister stated that the local authority would decide for itself how to organise and manage how AMCPs will operate. My concern is that they must be trained to a uniformly high standard. Such training should include assessment in all the key domains of responsibility. They should be registered as an AMCP and subject to revalidation over time. These people will, potentially, hold an enormous amount of power over somebody who is vulnerable.
I am also concerned that, unless those professional standards are in place, we will have a problem with quality control. In the event of a concern being raised about an AMCP, it is important that they are formally registered with the local authority. I also raise the question of how they will be indemnified and who will be responsible for their appraisal and supervision. They must have honorary contracts with adjacent local authorities to enable them to act, because some local authorities have relatively confined geographical areas. Given that these should be professionals, they should be listed with their professional body as having specialised training and skills. Another reason for this is my worry that, if they are going to function in hospitals, and unless they have a formal honorary contract from the local authority and are registered, we may end up with a two-tier system between local authorities and hospitals. I am not sure how that is going to work.
Amendment 61A seeks to expand the range of people who can train to become an AMCP. I declare an interest as president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy; I was at its annual conference at the weekend. I did not add physiotherapists to the list when I wrote the amendment, because I had not had a chance to consult them. However, it was evident, from many inspirational presentations, that physiotherapists working in head injury, acute trauma and stroke units, and in mental health services, can often be key to rehabilitation and restore people dramatically to a degree of independence that others had not envisaged. They felt very strongly that they did not want to be excluded; they have a lot to offer and are keen to train up, which seems very sensible.
I have also come across a few—not many—doctors who have retired from their main clinical practice but remain on the medical register, still work in some capacity or another, and, in later life, have developed an interest in people with impaired capacity. They have years of experience behind them, particularly in old-age psychiatry and so on, and would like to train as an AMCP. The criteria on which to select people should be their motivation, personal skills and background experience. We should not judge them by their original clinical degree qualification, because that is arbitrary. It does not mean that just because you are a nurse, a clinical psychologist or a social worker you would be perfectly fitted to this role; nor does it follow that because you are a speech and language therapist or a physiotherapist or whatever, you would not be suitable to take on this role and these responsibilities.
I therefore hope that the Minister might be able to expand a little, or perhaps not even discuss it here but think again, on how we will ensure that the people who carry this responsibility are trained to a uniformly high standard, are properly indemnified, can be identified, are able to function properly and can be held to account for the way in which they take decisions and advise. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
I would like to add a few more points on training. An awful lot of people in an awful lot of new roles will require training to get whatever system that we are going to end up with up and running at pace. Which organisation will be responsible for setting up the programmes for ensuring the delivery of good-quality training? Who has the responsibility to ensure that nothing is implemented until all the appropriate professionals have received their training? There is nothing worse than determining a date to fire the gun if you discover that all the people who are going to run the system are not yet trained. Can the Minister confirm that all this will start with plenty of time before the rollout of this new system? We expect that training should be effective and ongoing. Who will assess the trainers? What is the process for ensuring quality and a national standard? We may well be able to twist something that currently exists and make it work, but I do not have that knowledge. Can he also confirm that, as part of this training, the rights of the individual will be reinforced? Will the training clarify the role that each of these professionals within this new system is going to have in ensuring that an individual’s rights are observed and respected?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I want to follow up the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, by referring to the recent CQC annual report, which had a section on the implementation and practice in relation to DoLS. The report laid out a number of key concerns about care home and hospital providers that are actually using DoLS at the moment in relation to the Act itself. There is a huge variation in practice and this variation is commonly linked with a basic lack of understanding of the law, which is complex and difficult to understand. The report says that the result is that there are unnecessarily restrictive practices that can result in the loss of freedom and, in some cases, the loss of people’s human rights. The problems are reinforced by limited staffing levels, a lack of time to complete applications and inadequate staff training.
I am aware, of course, that the intention of this Bill is to streamline some of those procedures, although I think that, because the safeguards have been drastically reduced, we might be landing ourselves in future problems once the courts begin to hear some of the cases that will arise. The point is that it is quite clear that, at the moment, effective training is not taking place among many of the organisations involved in the operation of DoLS. The risk is that the same will happen in relation to the new legislation. We need some guarantees that there are going to be resources and a concerted training programme to ensure that we mitigate that impact.
Baroness Thornton
I will add to the questions that have already been asked of the Minister: who is going to pay for this? Training is very expensive and I was waiting for the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, to ask that question but she did not, so I am asking it. As I recall from the impact assessment, I am not sure that there is a large sum of money in there for the amount of training that might be necessary to ensure that this Bill is properly enacted.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for tabling these amendments and precipitating this discussion. I will move straight on to the substance of the amendments. Amendment 61 provides that local authorities must make arrangements for a named person to be in charge of training and revalidation of approved mental capacity professionals and that local authorities must make arrangements for contracts with neighbouring local authorities and health bodies as required.
On the issue of approvals and training, the Bill is clear that local authorities must approve individuals to become AMCPs, and regulations under paragraph 33 will make provision around training, qualifications and other eligibility criteria. The question of what kind of training there should be and who pays is something that we discussed at some length on the last Committee day. That was more in relation to care home managers, which was primarily the focus of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The same read-across applies to AMCPs as well. On that occasion, I committed to bringing forward more details of what the training would look like. I also confirmed that, in England, Health Education England and ADASS would be responsible for working with Skills for Care, and Social Work England. Those are the bodies that would be responsible for overseeing and designing the training. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked about the rights of individuals. Of course, that would be the centrepiece of any training programme to make sure that those rights are properly respected.
On the specific question about local authorities naming an individual, I say that the Bill does not prevent them doing so. It is something that they are able to do and, in our view, it does not need to be set out in primary legislation. There is no such requirement for best-interests assessors or approved mental health professionals, I understand, and that has not caused any difficulties in practice. To that extent, we can mimic the arrangements in place there.
Making arrangements with other local authorities is again not precluded by the Bill. Clearly, that is something that local authorities will want to do, depending on the arrangements they have commissioned in care across different authorities. I can confirm that we will provide guidance on this in the code of practice.
Amendment 61A adds to the criteria that must be met for a person to become an AMCP. They must be,
“a registered professional, with a minimum of three years clinical experience”.
A list sets out whom that could include; that list has been added to by one tonight, which in some senses exemplifies the nature of the problem. I completely agree with the noble Baroness: we need to set out not only the kind of professionals but the kind of qualifications and experience. There has to be a balance and a mix between all of those. That will be set out in regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about the proper place to set out the rigidity or robustness, and we believe that the appropriate place would be in regulations, which provide a degree of flexibility that would not apply if we enshrined this in primary legislation. That is why we are proposing the approach of defining the groups that should be acting as AMCPs.
Baroness Barker
How many cases have been taken to the Court of Appeal on the basis of regulations not being observed, as opposed to something in an Act? I do not expect an answer now, but I would like to know.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I am afraid that I do not know, but I will write to the noble Baroness and circulate the letter to all noble Lords.
To conclude, I hope that I have provided the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, with the reassurances that she was looking for and that she will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I learned some years ago not to have lists in the Bill, and I have fallen over my own list on this amendment. I am most grateful to the Minister for the reassurances that he has given. A lot of work will need to be done so that we make sure that training is there for the right people at the right time, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, in this group of amendments we begin to get into the issue of IMCAs and how that whole system will operate. In Amendment 63 I use the words,
“there is reason to believe”,
because I feel strongly that anyone who is concerned about the cared-for person—whether they are family, a friend who knows them well, a care assistant in the care home, if they are in a care home, or somebody who is coming into wherever they are being cared for, such as supported living—must be able to raise them independently, if necessary anonymously, and to request that an IMCA is appointed to go and see what is happening.
In Amendment 64 I removed the word “only” because I was attempting to remove the veto from a care home manager. The potential veto of a care home manager has caused so much concern in debate, and a great deal of anxiety in the briefings that have come through to us. I stress that advocacy—we will come on to that overall—needs careful monitoring, too, and people who act as advocates need support and supervision. Not just anybody can be an advocate, and we have to be careful that we do not exclude family and those who know a person well by having an advocate come in when in fact a family member who has known them for years may be in a much better position.
Also, we have to have a way of screening out advocates who, for whatever reason, may not be the right people to do this at the time. Unfortunately, it is inevitable and part of human nature that people will want to work in a field if they have had some experience of being on the receiving end. But certainly, when you look at bereavement counsellors and so on, they need to have a clear period before they are selected, and they need to be carefully selected and screened, and supervised. We are talking about extremely vulnerable people here, and the last thing we want to do is somehow to open the door to them being vulnerable at somebody else’s hands through our best intentions. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, this is again a rather fundamental indicator of some of the things that are badly wrong with the Bill. The words “best interests” appear in it three times, and twice they are used in relation to a care home manager being able to restrict access to advocacy. As the Bill stands, referral to advocacy is controlled by a relevant person, either the responsible body or the care home manager, and an advocate must be appointed if a person has capacity and requests an advocate—that is quite rare, and I have to say that under the Bill it would be something of a miracle, because they do not have the right to information about not only their current circumstances but about other less restrictive options. The Minister’s statements on information last week, when he referred to GDPR, were so strange that it has taken me a considerable time to work out that he had completely misunderstood that under the current system people have a right to information. They have the right not to request information but to be provided with information, which this amending Bill severely restricts.
However, the second condition is by far the most worrying. Somebody can request an advocate if the person lacks capacity and the relevant person is,
“satisfied that being represented and supported by an IMCA would be in the … person’s best interests”.
I invite noble Lords to think what would have happened if those words had been in law during Winterbourne View. That is why I am quite happy to use the word “shocking” about the Bill, as this is unacceptable. My amendments would try to get rid of the abuse of the term “best interests” to limit vulnerable people’s access to support. The Minister knows that under the DoLS system, by and large, if somebody requests an advocate, it is up to the relevant body to try to do their best to find one, or that they find an appropriate person. I refer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that under case law at the moment, local authorities have the right to override if an appropriate person is not doing their job properly on behalf of the person. That too will be undermined by the Bill.
The Minister will also know that if somebody has no relatives and nobody else in the world—they are “undefended”, to use that rather archaic but useful and clear term—they have an automatic right to advocacy. I know that much will be made of advocacy being expensive, advocates being a resource that is not readily available, and that people who do not need advocacy will be unnecessarily interviewed. I am quite happy to talk at length to the Government about ways in which advocates or advocacy resources could be better used and better targeted—but absolutely not by drawing it like this, putting this sort of hurdle not even in a code of practice but in a Bill.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, we on these Benches very much agree with the purport of these amendments, which again bring to light some of the ambiguities in the Bill and some of the rights that are not properly respected by it. Over the next period the Minister will not only need to give us a theoretical answer but have to answer things such as the question about Winterbourne View, and look at the hard examples of real experience which some of us have been receiving in our postbags over the last month. We will need to return to this over the next few weeks, and possibly even at the next stage.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am grateful to all the noble Baronesses for their amendments and for speaking in the debate on this group. Let me begin with a statement of principle. I accept the challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that we need to move from principles to practicalities, or in our case to the appropriate legislation. There is genuinely no attempt in the Bill to restrict people’s access to independent advocacy. As has been clearly voiced, not only in this Chamber but elsewhere, there is a concern that that will be the effect of what is proposed, and that is something that we need to deal with. But let me say at the beginning that that is not the intention. It must be the case that anybody who needs support to navigate these difficult and complex situations must be able to find the right support for them. I will explain why the Bill is as it is in a moment, but let me at least give that statement of principle at the beginning.
I will deal now with the specific amendments in this group. Amendments 63 and 64 aim to ensure that the Bill is robust on the appointment of the IMCA. I completely agree that it is vital that the care home manager notifies the responsible body that an IMCA should be appointed. That is required by the Bill. However, I know that there is great concern about the impartiality of this person and a requirement for strengthening in this regard. It is also our position that a responsible body will be able to appoint an IMCA if there is a request by, for example, a family member or the person themselves, or if there is a disagreement with the notification given by a care home manager. I am considering how we can make the Bill clearer in that regard. As we home in on the issue of the incentives for the care home manager to follow best practice, as we would want, I am aware that we need to do more work on this to get it right.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is a very helpful comment but will the Minister pick up the point that part of the problem is that the care manager is not only the co-ordinator but often the gatekeeper to the protections that noble Lords wish to see included? Take, for instance, the definition of “relevant person”. It seems to me, looking at this afresh, that far too much authority is being given to the care home manager in relation not just to co-ordination but to the protections.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. The debate we had last week was very much around the proper role for the care “home” manager—I take on board the rejoinder from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the specificity of terms. I do not want to rehash that debate, save to say that the care home manager model is the right one going forward, while recognising, as I did last week—here I agree with the noble Lord’s point—that there are a lot of concerns about conflicts of interest, training, the degree of responsibility and other things.
In this case, we are talking about notification of the appointment of an IMCA, where there is real concern that there is an element of marking your own homework. That is not what we are trying to achieve: we are trying to achieve the consideration of deprivation of liberty at the earliest possible point in care planning by somebody who is responsible for organising—although in lots of cases not personally delivering—that care. We are trying to deliver a more proportionate system than the one that we know is currently failing. As I committed to in last week’s Committee debate, I want to get that right. If we cannot get it right, the risk is that we end up replicating the system that we have now, which would be in nobody’s interests. I hope that, by restating that, I have satisfied the noble Lord.
Amendments 68, 71 and 72 relate to the criteria for appointing IMCAs. The Bill currently states that an IMCA should be appointed if a person has capacity to consent to being represented and supported by an IMCA and makes a request to the relevant person, and there is no appropriate person available. It also states that a cared-for person should be supported by an IMCA if the person lacks capacity to consent and being represented by an IMCA is in their best interests and there is no appropriate person in place.
I recognise the concern expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Thornton, about the term “best interests”. Let me state again the intention that, in the vast majority of circumstances, we expect it would be in a cared-for person’s interests to receive representation and support from an IMCA or appropriate person. However, there may be a small number of circumstances where that is not the case. For example, if a person is adamant that they do not want this sort of representation, and has refused advocacy support in the past, it would not be right to impose such an advocate on them. If we remove the best interests consideration, we risk a situation where responsible bodies can override the past and present wishes of the person.
Baroness Barker
I thank the Minister for that explanation. Given that the Bill as drafted is essentially a “get out of jail free” card for bad care home owners, the Government must have a really good evidence base to have come forward with a proposal as sweeping as that. I wonder whether the Minister can share with us the evidence that has led to the Government putting this in the Bill. It really should be quite convincing, given that it has got to this stage. It would be helpful if he would let noble Lords see that evidence.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am happy to discuss the issue with all noble Lords, as I have said in the past. I return to where I started: the intention of this approach is to make sure that independent advocacy is not imposed on someone who genuinely does not want it. It is not to provide a “get out of jail free” card for poor care home managers. If that is a concern, I take it very seriously, but it is not the intention of the Bill. However, if it is the case, something needs to be remedied. Let me assure noble Lords that I will make best efforts to do so as we move forward from Committee.
This has been a very useful discussion. In some sense it has provided a degree of continuity from our discussion last week, while moving on to the issue of advocacy, which we will clearly explore further. I hope that, with the reassurances I have given at this stage, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, this debate has been extremely interesting and, in many ways, gets to the nub of some of our concerns. In looking at the Bill, one thing I have tried to do is to benchmark its procedures to see how they would work. I was involved in prosecuting appalling care in EMI homes. I am trying to see how we could have discovered sooner that there were problems there.
I share the concern about the care home manager having too much power. Having said that, I have found the Minister’s answers today reassuring, as they were on the second day in Committee. I suggest, however, that the number of objectors will be very few, because many of these people have such impaired capacity and are not in a position to object—it may be other people who speak up on their behalf.
Baroness Barker
I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, agrees that, when you watch well-trained advocates at work, you see that they absolutely understand if their presence is upsetting somebody. They are not routinely attempting to force themselves on to people who definitely do not need their help. The question of whether somebody wants their help or not is a more nuanced professional judgment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I agree with the noble Baroness that when they work well, they can work extremely well. As I said earlier, I would also caution against the family and other people being potentially pushed aside, and people being not adequately supervised or monitored.
We have a great deal to consider outside the Chamber tonight. I am grateful to the Minister for being in listening mode so far. This group of amendments and the next are the ones that we will need to have a big discussion about. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I feel that I should apologise for leading on this group of amendments, but it was by chance that my number came up. It was not my choice: I did not ask to lead on it.
The role of Amendment 65, which is the one that I really want to speak to, is to state clearly that we must strengthen the voice of anyone who has any concerns so that they can speak up on behalf of the cared-for person. I note that my noble friend Lady Hollins’s Amendment 66 provides powers to the voice of the responsible body and would mean that the responsible body must listen to representations. Amendment 67 strengthens the word “must”. There is a great deal in these amendments. I will not take the time of the Committee by speaking to other noble Lords’ amendments, other than to say that this group of amendments contains a great deal of rich wisdom. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the appointment of an advocate, or appropriate person, to support the cared-for person in exercising their rights. The appointment of an independent mental capacity advocate and the identification of an appropriate person rely on care home managers being able to arrange a capacity assessment and a best-interests decision and on them notifying the responsible body. I noted the Minister’s assurance on our last day in Committee that care home managers will not be making an assessment themselves. But how will errors be identified and what will happen if the care home manager gets it wrong? Will the Minister tell the Committee how that will be detected on the basis of a paper-based review by the local authority when the paper has been supplied by the care home manager? The responsible body should not rely simply on what the care home manager thinks.
My Amendment 66 gives the local authority discretion to appoint an appropriate person or IMCA without notification from a care home, with whom there may be a conflict of interest, if the responsible body has reason to believe that such representation and support is needed for the cared-for person. Reasons to believe might include notification by an AMCP or a third party, or local authority social services involved in care planning.
The provision of advocacy can have a transformative effect and be the first time that the cared-for person’s views, and those of their family, are forcefully represented to decision makers. A failure to listen to people or to give weight or credence to what they say lies at the heart of many of the tragedies that have shamed social care and health services over recent decades. For that reason, it is vital for people to get the support that they need to express their views and exercise their rights, either through the appointment of an appropriate individual, often a family member, or an independent mental capacity advocate.
As they stand, Clauses 36 and 37 of the Bill are confusing and poorly drafted, with inconsistencies. For example, the Bill states:
“An IMCA should be appointed if the cared-for person … has capacity to consent to being represented and supported by an IMCA, and … makes a request to the relevant person”—
but IMCAs are instructed to support and represent only people who lack capacity. My Amendments 67, 69, 70, 73, and 74 add emphasis and aim to address these inconsistences and ensure that every cared-for person has access to support from either an appropriate person or an IMCA who is both willing and able to help them understand and exercise rights of challenge.
As it is drafted, the Bill leaves open the possibility of circumstances where a person may have neither an IMCA nor an appropriate person and therefore no means of being able to exercise their rights under Article 5(4) of the European Charter of Human Rights. Rulings such as the AJ v A Local Authority judgment, in paragraph 35, stipulate:
“Article 5(4) may not be complied with where access to a court is dependent on the exercise of discretion by a third party, rather than an automatic entitlement … Where a person lacks the capacity to instruct lawyers directly, the safeguards required may include empowering or even requiring some other person to act on that person’s behalf”.
My amendments therefore remove best interests from the criteria for appointment of a representative, as this should play no role in determining whether people are able to exercise their rights of challenge. Will the Minister explain the basis on which he believes that Part 5 of the Bill as drafted is fully compliant with this ruling and with ECHR Article 5?
I am also concerned about the potential conflict of interest if those responsible for arranging and providing care, such as care home managers, also act as gatekeepers to the person’s ability to exercise their right of appeal through best-interest assessments. There should be a clear route for the cared-for person to be able to appeal and to get the support that they need to do this. We know that access to justice is already a serious problem under the current system. The appeal rate is below 1% and cases such as that of Steven Neary and others show how hard it is for families and detained people to challenge public bodies where they object to the arrangements. I understand that the Government estimate that the new arrangements will reduce the appeal rate even further to 0.5%.
My Amendments 76 and 77 recognise the considerable responsibilities being placed on an appropriate person. In some circumstances, an appropriate person such as a family member who knows the person may well be best placed to assist the cared-for person, but may need some assistance. Making sure that an IMCA is involved in these cases would enable them to fulfil this role with support.
Nothing in the Bill details the functions that the IMCA will perform. It would help the Committee if we understood why this has not been addressed. The Law Commission’s draft Bill provided powers to strengthen regulation provision—Section 36 of the Mental Capacity Act—around how an IMCA is to discharge the functions of representing or supporting, including challenging decisions and facilitating a person’s involvement in relevant decisions. The experience of DoLS over the last nine years has shown us the need for clarity on when the representative—an IMCA or lay person—can or needs to challenge the authorisation.
My Amendment 79 recognises this and reinserts regulation-making powers into the Bill, extending it in the case of an IMCA appointed under the LPS to make provision as to how that advocate is to support the cared-for person, and where relevant the appropriate person, in exercising the right both to make an application to court and to request a review. This provision is necessary to secure a person’s rights under Article 5(4).
The Bill recognises that the role that the appropriate person undertakes provides a vital safeguard for the cared-for person for the purposes of Article 5 of the ECHR, but the Bill fails to place a duty on the responsible body to keep under review whether the appropriate person is undertaking their functions. This is an important safeguard under the DoLS, where the relevant person’s representative role—essentially an identical role to the appropriate person—has a duty to maintain contact with the cared-for person. My Amendment 80 places a duty on the responsible body to keep under review whether the appropriate person is undertaking their functions and, if they can no longer fulfil them, to appoint another appropriate person or IMCA at that point.
The Minister has given reassurances, a number of times, that issues within the Bill will be addressed through the code of practice. The requirement to act needs to be in the Bill. How it is done and implemented could be set out in the code of practice. I hope that the Minister will accept that these amendments address serious and fundamental issues that need to be resolved within the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 78, but I should like to say a word in support for the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to which I have added my name. These amendments concern the arrangements for the appointment of independent mental capacity advocates and they sensibly seek to ensure that an IMCA must be appointed if the appropriate person would have substantial difficulty helping the cared-for person to understand their rights, involving them in decisions and assisting them to exercise rights of challenge if they wish to do so without the support of an IMCA. I want to make it clear that relevant rights include the right to make an application to the court and the right to request a review of the arrangements. The responsible body must ensure that cases are referred to the court when a cared-for person’s right to a court review is engaged.
The concern is that at the moment, referral to advocacy is controlled by the relevant person, who is the responsible body or the care home manager. An advocate must be appointed if the person has capacity and requests an advocate, which is likely to be very rare, or the person lacks capacity and the relevant person is satisfied that being represented and supported by an IMCA would be in the person’s best interests. The problem, which we have now debated a number of times, is that the right to advocacy seems to be more limited than under DoLS, and it is at the discretion of the relevant person not to refer if it is not considered to be in the best interests. As has been commented on, there are only three references to best interests in the entire Bill, and two are used at the discretion of the care home manager or the responsible body to actually limit the right to an IMCA. We have to build in some more safeguards, including referral to the Court of Protection. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which looked at the original Law Commission work, said that the responsible body should be under a clear statutory duty to refer cases where others fail to do so.
I was interested to receive over the weekend an email from the carers for HL in HL v UK ECHR 2004, otherwise known as the Bournewood case. They have always been critical when they observe bad practice and the failure to uphold a person’s rights. They say that reading the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill and following its passage through the parliamentary process so far has been depressing and leaves them feeling extremely frustrated and angry that the work they started in 1997 and the protections for the person that came about from that work are now being thrown away by this Bill. The lack of any of the protections they argued for individually and collectively, which at least had a fair hearing when they gave oral evidence to the JCHR and, they believe, were mostly reflected in its recent paper, appear to have been completely ignored, as has most of what the JCHR had to say. They say that anything less than the JCHR recommendations, along with nearly all of the proposals from the Law Commission, would be a reduction in the value of a person’s individual rights and against the concept of the MCA and even of the existing DoLS.
Interestingly, their acid test is this: if HL against Bournewood happened today under these proposals, would he be any better protected than in 1997 or under DoLS? They say that given the attitude of the professional employed by the hospital managing authority at the time, the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill places more control in the hands of those very professionals and shows less consideration of HL and those who were trying to get him out. In its current form, it is a monumental failure. I know that the Minister thinks that this is an exaggeration, but coming from the carers of HL, it suggests that there are real and genuine concerns about where the Government are going. My fear, as I said last week, is that essentially we are seeing a streamlining of the bureaucratic process and many of the safeguards are being reduced. That is why access to the Court of Protection is so important.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I have tabled one amendment in this group, Amendment 75. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments we had on the previous group but I want to put one question to the Minister. Why in paragraphs 36 and 37 do we suddenly see the term “relevant person” being introduced? It is quite confusing and I shall need to go back and look at Hansard. I do not want to make a wrong accusation, but I think there is confusion about the terms “relevant person” and “appropriate person”, when in fact they are two completely different things. My understanding is that a “relevant person” is either the responsible body or a care home manager, so why do we not talk about that? If that is what is meant, let us be up-front about it.
Amendment 75 asks why the appropriate person as we know them under the Mental Capacity Act has to have capacity to consent to being supported by an IMCA if the purpose is not just to put another hurdle in the way to make sure that these people—let us bear in mind that they do not have a right to be given information under this Bill—have to make a request of the care manager or the care home manager. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is right to say that the Minister has talked about care home managers and care managers; they are different, but all of them have a potential vested interest in making sure that someone does not have access to an IMCA. That, I think, would be a gross dereliction.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments go some way to ensuring that a cared-for person is not left without an independent mental capacity advocate or the support of an appropriate person. Much of the Bill as it stands represents what I think is a real assault on human rights. For heaven’s sake, we should be listening to the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins, Lady Barker and Lady Finlay, and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt. He has shared with me the email from the carers of HL and it is very powerful. My father was a miner and he would have said, “This is the experience from the coalface”. We can take this as an important contribution to understanding the difficulties that families face when they have to deal with the issues we are discussing.
Amendment 66 would give a local authority discretion to appoint an appropriate person or an independent mental capacity advocate without notification from a care home. Mencap and others have argued most powerfully that this amendment would minimise the risk of conflict of interest. That is important, as we have seen in other debates. It would mean that a care home arrangement could be more easily challenged and subject to scrutiny. Is not challenging and scrutinising what we do every day in this House? We challenge and scrutinise legislation brought forward by the Government; that is our role. Why would we deny that opportunity to the vulnerable people we are talking about in this Bill?
As it stands, the process for deciding whether to appoint an appropriate person or advocate requires a series of capacity assessments and best interest decisions made by the responsible body or the care home manager, even though both convention and domestic law have made it clear that there is no place for best interests in Article 5 appeal rights. Unless we effect change, this Bill will pass into law and we will see a cared-for person without the appropriate support of either an independent mental capacity advocate or an appropriate person—and that at a most crucial time in their life. That cannot be right. Amendments 76 and 77 are important if we are to ensure that the appropriate person gets the support they need for the role they have undertaken. We have had several long and important debates during the passage of the Bill. These amendments are reasonable and surely the Government must now start to listen.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I thank all noble Lords who have put their names to these amendments and given us the opportunity to carry on what has been a very good discussion so far about the important role of IMCAs and, indeed, appropriate persons as well. I shall deal first with Amendments 65, 66, 67, 69, 70 and 76 as they relate to the circumstances under which a person can request an IMCA and under which an IMCA can be appointed.
As I said in the previous debate, it is our intention not to have any reduction in advocacy or support as a consequence of the Bill. Indeed, it is our position that a responsible body should be able to appoint an IMCA if there is a request by a cared-for person or family member and either a care home manger has not provided notification or the responsible body disagrees with the notification given. As I also said then, I recognise concerns that the circumstances under which an IMCA can be appointed would be narrowed as a consequence of the Bill, which is not something we want to happen. I do not want to rehearse the entire debate we had last time other than to say that it was a good one. I have assured noble Lords about what I want to take away from that, which is to consider the appropriate way in which we can go forward with the role of the care home manager while making sure that all concerns about restrictions to advocacy and so on are adequately put to bed.
I want to make a point on Amendment 75, which falls into this set of amendments, about why the term “relevant person” is used. I am not quite sure why, specifically; rather, I have an idea, but I do not want to get it wrong. It would be safer for me to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about why that phrase is used and circulate it to noble Lords. Certainly, this is already a complex piece of legislation with lots of terms and jargon; for goodness’ sake, let us not increase that, if at all possible.
I want to take up the challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on rights to information. During the previous debate, I tried to make it clear that we will set out the right to information but rights to information—not rights to request it—have been strengthened by a variety of legislation, some of which has nothing to do with the care of people lacking capacity. I also said last time that we are reviewing the Bill to see if it needs to be revised to achieve the outcome that the noble Baroness wants. I know that she is concerned about this, but work is under way to try to resolve this issue.
Moving on, we have not previously discussed the term “appropriate person”, which relates to Amendments 73, 74, 77 and 80. This is a good opportunity to speak about the important role of the appropriate person in the new model. As noble Lords know, under the DoLS system the relevant person representative—we are getting into difficulties of language—can be a family member, a paid role or even an advocate. That can unnecessarily give rights to two separate advocates. There has been confusion about the purpose of the RPR and how it differs to advocacy. Our intention is that the appropriate person role will be clearer, not least because it is a familiar part of the Care Act, where the appropriate person facilitates the person’s involvement in the care process.
Obviously, that person provides a vital safeguard for the cared-for person. They are appointed to represent and support the cared-for person, ensuring that the person’s rights are protected and that the person is fully involved in decisions. As I said, that is already established under the Care Act for the purposes of caring. The role of appropriate person can be fulfilled by a family member, someone close to the cared-for person, someone with lasting power of attorney or a volunteer. I know from previous discussions how keen noble Lords are to make sure that the voice of the person is central to discussions about their care and the deprivation of their liberty. Clearly, the appropriate person has an essential role here.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked specifically about the question of a right to act. It is all very well appointing somebody—they also have to be willing to be appointed—but when appointing an appropriate person or recognising one, the responsible body has to be confident that the appropriate person is prepared to act. Indeed, that is part of their appropriateness. Otherwise, an IMCA should be appointed. That satisfies the noble Baroness’s question at the beginning about an appropriate person being appointed, but not about what happens if they lapse or the process by which they, or their appropriateness, would be reviewed. As it stands, I will need to reflect on that further to explain it to her. The process may well happen through the regular reviews, but I need to take that question away and think about how we provide reassurance that the appropriate person is in a position to act and wants to do so. Clearly, if an appropriate person, not an IMCA, was appointed but not prepared to act, the cared-for person would lapse into a situation where they did not have somebody in their corner, which we are all trying to avoid.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I listened very carefully to the speech of my noble friend Lady Hollins. Her experience shone through, and there was much wisdom in her comments. I worry that perhaps in this and the previous group of amendments we have not adequately focused on the need to support the cared-for person as much as possible in making their own decisions and in supporting them. I can envisage a situation where the appropriate person has limitations for whatever reason and it would seem very sensible that they were then able to request an IMCA be appointed.
However, just on the other side of it, we must not forget the enormous burden out there already. Only last week I spoke with a brain injury case manager, Dr Mark Holloway, who works with a care home. He said he is currently managing 13 cases of clients with acquired brain injury who are awaiting DoLS approval from the local authority. Despite the efforts of the care home staff and their solicitors, they have not been able to get this through. We must not lose sight of the fact that the current system is, quite frankly, completely failing. He was saying that they have worked very hard to make sure that it is the least restrictive option, but he is concerned at the lack of scrutiny of their decision-making. In their efforts to acquire DoLS authorisations, the care home staff have sought and paid for expert legal advice on multiple occasions to support them constructing clear and evidenced capacity assessments. He stresses the difficulty of assessing capacity in acquired brain injury and the need to assess function: not just what is said but how the person is actually functioning—what is done and the complexity of it.
I hope that we will return to the issues behind this set of amendments, because in a way I do not feel that we have done justice to the subject tonight. It does need a bit more discussion outside this Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Thornton
My goodness, we are back in the Bill, out of the appendix. I am formally moving that Clause 2 do not stand part. However, I will address my remarks to the two amendments in my name in this group. They concern advance consent. This amendment comes from Clause 6 of the Law Commission’s draft Bill, and inserts two new sections into the Mental Capacity Act: advance consent to certain arrangements, and the effects of advance consent. These sections provide for a person to consent in advance to specific arrangements to enable care and treatment that would otherwise amount to a deprivation of liberty.
To give advance consent, the person must have the capacity to consent to specified arrangements being put in place at a later time that otherwise would be considered deprivation of liberty. They must also clearly articulate the arrangement to which they are consenting. Provisions in this amendment relating to advance consent are similar to those relating to advance decisions to refuse treatment which appear in Sections 24 to 26 of the Mental Capacity Act.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and my noble friends Lord Touhig and Lord Hunt for supporting this amendment, and I think it is important that we probe this particular issue. On previous Committee days and in discussions with stakeholders, one of the recurring sentiments was that the well-being of the cared-for person should be at the front of this legislation, and it seems that advance consent is definitely a crucial issue in putting the cared-for person at the heart.
Amendment 85 concerns unlawful deprivation of liberty. Again, this amendment comes from Clause 7 of the Law Commission’s draft Bill and would insert two new sections into the Mental Capacity Act on unlawful deprivation of liberty and on proceedings and remedies. These sections would provide a route for an individual deprived of their liberty in a private care home or hospital to seek redress where proper authorisation under this Bill and the Mental Health Act, or an order of court, has not been obtained. This amendment seeks to define the private care provider. Again, we have been concerned about how the Bill will be applied to those in a private care setting or hospital. It seeks to probe how they should be affected by the Bill.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, Amendment 84, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is possibly one of the most important amendments we have tabled to the Bill. It has become so much more important over the last 20 or 30 years to try to encourage people to make decisions in advance about what should happen to them and to encourage them to think about what will happen in the event of things going wrong—to think about things such as lasting powers of attorney and advance decisions on mental health services. I understand that Sir Simon Wessely will recommend some changes that are very similar to this to go into the new mental health legislation. It would be good, bearing in mind our previous discussions, if we could feel confident that the same sort of approach was being taken in this Bill.
Advance decision-making in legislation has proved quite difficult to implement, because you have to have a widespread campaign of understanding how people can make these decisions. It also has to have the individual making the decision accept that things will happen to them that they are not expecting, which is sometimes very difficult. That is why it so difficult to get people to sign up to insurance against long-term care; they simply do not believe that it will ever happen to them. It is very difficult to get these bits of legislation implemented and widespread, but we have to start somewhere. This is such an important piece to try to get into a Bill, to start people thinking about their future and what is acceptable. This would be a very important thing for the Bill.
I would also like to see Amendment 85 implemented. It is something that the Law Commission had in originally. I am not quite sure why it came out. It sort of just disappeared in the transcription somewhere. It is an important safeguard. We tend to forget all those Victorian cases a couple of hundred years ago when people were quite regularly held in circumstances against their wishes and unlawfully deprived of their liberty. It is as well to be reminded that it can, and probably does, still happen quite frequently. To have something on the statute book would be helpful, so I support the two amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I am afraid I will take a different view. Amendment 84 is potentially incredibly dangerous in the context of the Bill. I can understand why people with a mental health disorder who know exactly what is likely to happen to them when they relapse and know what treatment they do and do not want can make an informed decision based on their previous experience of their illness and episodes. Here, however, we are asking people to provide advance consent to their liberty being deprived in a situation that they do not know about and have not experienced. The evidence from advance care planning—I have a recent paper from Ontario—showed that people’s knowledge was very poor. There were decision conflicts and when they were re-interviewed later they had re-evaluated their decisions in the light of further information and as things had moved forwards.
The problem is that the cared-for person’s experience of care is based on human interaction. They cannot predict who will be the carer at some point in the future, nor how that interpersonal chemistry will work. I am concerned that there is a real danger that someone could be locked in to having to live with what they said previously. There is a lot of evidence from the world of care planning that people do change their preferences. Indeed, as an illness progresses, they may change them very radically.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, this is a fascinating discussion which will be familiar to the noble Lords who took part in previous legislation on mental capacity and on mental health. The thing I am most heartened by is the prediction made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, of what Sir Simon Wessely might do in his review of the Mental Health Act. Way back when the law was reviewed in 2005—I think it was then but I am hopeless with dates—I was one of a number of Peers who argued the case that people with fluctuating mental health conditions should be able to say, at a point when they had capacity, “At some future point, if I have an episode, it is likely that I may refuse treatment but, right at the moment, now that I am well, I wish to say that I want you to ignore that”. That was resolutely turned down by the small bunch of forensic psychiatrists who were behind that change to legislation. So I am glad that the world of mental health is moving to catch up with other parts of medicine, where greater involvement of patients and exercise of patient choice is something to be encouraged and not dismissed.
Many of the arguments that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, put forward were arguments which were put up against the original proposals of the Mental Capacity Act. I believe that, were this to be in legislation, we should be able to put a lot of safeguards around it. At this stage, I encourage the Minister to take these proposals and put them into the future discussions that will take place on the Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I do not want to prolong this too much but I will ask the noble Baroness: has she in any way lost confidence in the proposal that she put forward when the Mental Capacity Act was a Bill before us? It was for an advance statement of wishes, which has, when properly used, been a very powerful tool to make sure that somebody is listened to. My concern has been that our discussion to date has been about the wishes and feelings of the person as previously expressed. From the way she was talking, I am concerned that it sounds as if she might have lost confidence in the ability of that—because, as I have said, I have a real concern that tying somebody legally to enforcing something which was said in advance could potentially be really dangerous.
Baroness Barker
No, I have not lost confidence in that; I simply wish to undertake further discussion, given that—I say it again—it looks entirely likely that mental health legislation may be changing. I think, in light of that, that it is a wise discussion to have.
Baroness Murphy
May I just add that I think it is important to read all the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton? She provides for any opportunity, any chance, that the individual may indicate that they have changed their mind, at which point those things come to an end, essentially. They have to be quite specific that if there is any doubt in somebody’s mind that this is no longer something that can be continued, that there is anxiety about them being implemented, then it comes to an end. So I think those things can be taken care of.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, these amendments are examples of the long and complicated amendments which I think could end up going wrong, because they are trying to cover quite a lot, which will probably become gold-plated and give rather too much weight to the legal profession. I do not think that what Sir Simon Wessely planned to do is relevant here, because it is not really about mental illness but about dementia. If that is the case, people may not be in a position to change their mind at a later date, so these amendments are very complicated and probably rather unwise.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for introducing this clause stand part debate. We had a chat earlier, so I shall not formally respond to her but instead deal with the amendments as laid, if that is all right with everybody. Clearly, these are very important issues that need to be dealt with properly.
Amendment 84 would allow individuals to provide advance consent to arrangements enabling care or treatment that would otherwise amount to a deprivation of liberty. As noble Baronesses have commented, the Law Commission recommended that provision should be made in the Bill to allow this. This would mean saying that cared-for people entering certain settings, such as hospitals and end-of-life care, where the arrangements are predictable and time limited, would not be required to undergo additional assessments if they needed to be deprived of their liberty. In the Government’s response to the Law Commission, we agreed that people should have choice and control over future decisions being made on their behalf, but we said that we needed to look at the detail of this specific proposal. I understand that there is enthusiasm among some noble Lords for such a recommendation, particularly, as has been said, as a way of alleviating unnecessary assessments for those in palliative and end-of-life care.
On palliative care, before I get on to more general concerns, I think it is important to note that the Government have issued some guidance about consent in the context of palliative care in the last few weeks of life. I realise that this talks only about one part of the time period that we might be talking about. The guidance says that if an individual has capacity to consent to arrangements for their care at the time of their admission, or at a time before losing capacity, and does consent, this consent would cover the period until their death, hence there is no deprivation of liberty. However, the guidance is also clear that this consent would no longer be valid if significant extra restrictions were put in place, after this point, to which the person had not consented. So there is a situation that pertains to people right at the end of life and provides some opportunity for challenge if restrictions change.
If we extend that time period out, not just to weeks but to months and years, it has been brought to light in this debate that, while there is a desire to make sure that a person’s advance consent is taken seriously and given legal force, concerns have also been raised, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about extending the application in such a way that it could actually deprive people of their protections and human rights. These are clearly concerns that we need to take seriously.
Concerns have also been expressed to the department, in engagement with stakeholders, that the inclusion in statute law of advance consent to being deprived of liberty might imply that there is an expectation that people should have an advance statement of wishes in place, and that people may be pressured into making an advance statement. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that in some ways planning for the future may be a good thing but, equally, we do not want to force people to plan for the future when their desire is not to. We protect the right of people to make bad decisions; that is an important part of a person having a sense of agency and autonomy. Concerns have been expressed that that would be put in danger and people would feel pressured to do something that they might not wish to do.
Clearly, the Law Commission made this recommendation with highly laudable aims. However, we have concerns and are not yet convinced of the merits of the amendment. We have tried to deal with some of the issues around integrating planning through the creation of a system based on the production of a care plan. We have talked about the inclusion of a statement of wishes. I would like to know more about the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about advance statements of wishes. I would like to follow that up and understand it a bit better. The process we are envisaging would allow the inclusion of advance decisions to refuse treatment as part of future care planning. That is not affected by what we are discussing here but that would be allowed. We are not convinced of the merits of the amendment—indeed, we have some concerns about the implications of it—but I would be keen to understand a bit more about previous discussions of this topic and whether there are other ways to provide that sense of agency for the person who will be cared for without producing undue pressure on them or legal force in a way that would go against their interests and, in legal terms, their human rights.
Amendment 85 would create a new civil court remedy against some private care providers, including non-NHS hospitals and private care homes, if they have deprived someone of their liberty unlawfully. Again, this provision was proposed by the Law Commission. However, we do not believe that a new legal remedy is required. There is already an ability to seek damages under the Human Rights Act on the basis of a breach of Article 5 and usually Article 8. This is available in private cases, where a private care provider is depriving a self-funder of their liberty unlawfully. A remedy could be sought against the public authority responsible for the deprivation. Obviously, we need to hold private care providers to the same standards that we hold public care providers to. There are already a number of mechanisms that allow for this, and the law provides for them. There is the criminal offence of false imprisonment, as well as the existing law of false imprisonment for civil claims. So people can already bring legal action against private care providers.
On top of this, the Care Quality Commission in England and the Care Inspectorate Wales would also ensure compliance with the liberty protection safeguards. Clearly, they have a range of enforcement actions available to them that apply to the public and private sector alike. Furthermore, as commissioners, local authorities will—and do—have a role in ensuring that private care providers fulfil their legal duties. The Government believe that sufficient levers are already in place and that the creation of an additional civil route could increase care providers’ insurance costs at a time when, as we all know, we are working hard to make sure that there is funding in the system to provide adequate and good-quality social care to everybody who needs it.
I understand and agree with the desire to hold private providers to the same standards that we hold public providers to, but we believe there are existing remedies within the system and there is no need to require or implement new ones. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will not move her amendments.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that detailed response and the noble Baronesses, Lady Murphy and Lady Barker, for their support. I did not intend to alarm the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I thought we might be veering into discussions the House has had on many occasions about advance consent for various things. I do not think we want to go there, but I was beginning to get the feeling of “Doctor knows best” when we were having that discussion.
I am not certain that the care plan works. The Law Commission had very good reasons for putting what are now Amendments 84 and 85 into the draft Bill that it brought forward, which were to do with the fact not that its people are lawyers but that it had consulted very widely with stakeholders and people involved in the care system. These are the conclusions that it came to, so I will read carefully what the Minister has said about this. Maybe we can include these amendments in our discussions and decide whether we need to pursue them further at the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Thornton
“Restriction on power of attorneys and deputies
After section 29 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 insert—“29A Deprivation of libertyNothing in this Act authorises a donee of a lasting power of attorney or a deputy to consent on behalf of a person to arrangements which give rise to a deprivation of that person’s liberty.””
Baroness Thornton
Amendment 83 concerns the power of attorney and restrictions on it. This amendment comes from Clause 3 of the Law Commission’s draft Bill. I said right from the outset that in Committee we would test the Bill against those issues that the Law Commission had decided to put into the draft Bill and ask why they had been dropped. Many of them are absolutely at the heart of the safeguards that are necessary for vulnerable and cared-for people. The amendment would insert a new section into the Mental Capacity Act, which expressly prevents,
“a donee of a lasting power of attorney or a deputy”,
appointed by the Court of Protection from consenting on a person’s behalf,
“to arrangements which give rise to a deprivation of … liberty”.
This is the position in the current law but this statement makes it explicit. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group, which are there simply because the topic is lasting power of attorney. I do not have an argument with Amendment 83 at all. It is absolutely right that the person’s best interests must be considered and that someone cannot just give consent on their behalf.
The amendments that I have tabled are designed to solve three current problems that we have with lasting powers of attorney. The first, Amendment 83ZA, relates to the identity documentation that somebody must produce to show that they are the donee of a lasting power of attorney. These are bulky papers which have to be registered and stamped by the Office of the Public Guardian, and then produced. For many people who are donees, those papers may be at their home; that may be a long way away from wherever the cared-for person—the donor—is. When that donor has lost capacity, the donee can either carry the sheaf of papers around with them all the time or just hope to be going via their home filing cabinet to pick them up before they go to see the person.
I hope that we might move toward something a bit more modern in electronic identification—something like the driving licence, which is a small card on which you can have a registration number. You could also have a picture of the donor as well as one of the donee, which would allow a second layer of recognition. That would also, I hope, focus the mind on the fact that the donor must be at the centre of all the decision-making. Its validity could easily be checked against a number, so that if it had been updated—and for some reason the previous form had not been returned—a simple check with the Office of the Public Guardian might verify its status.
Amendment 87G is designed to solve another problem that has been arising: that a person may appoint several people to hold their lasting power of attorney in the event that they lose capacity. However, as time goes on it has happened that they lose confidence in one of those people, for whatever reason. Maybe there is a dispute in the family or they feel that the person is no longer able to take a decision in their best interest, for whatever reason, and they want to revoke having that person as a donee. The problem is that it is quite a complicated process and they have to go back to square one. This amendment is designed to make it much easier for them to state that they no longer want one person listed but they want the others to remain. I have discussed this with the Public Guardian, who sees it as a problem at the moment that the revocation of a donee is difficult.
Amendment 87E arises out of a problem which is also beginning to occur. I should declare an interest here because it is a problem that is close to my heart: a member of my family has severely impaired capacity and her spouse, who is the only person who can act on her behalf, is becoming older. There is concern about what happens if he cannot act on her behalf and take decisions. At the moment, it is only when the donee loses capacity that others can go to the Court of Protection for a court-appointed deputy. The aim of this amendment is to allow the donee to make some provision so that, in the event of their losing capacity—either temporarily if they have a fall with a fracture, a head injury or have pneumonia, or permanently so they become frail and possibly demented—they can make provision ahead of time in the cold light of day. The alternative is the family, with one family member who lacks capacity and the person who was taking care of their affairs now acutely ill and in crisis, having to go to the Court of Protection to get a court-appointed deputy, which can take some time.
I have discussed this with the Court of Protection, which wants to be helpful in moving things forward, and with Alan Eccles, the Public Guardian, who is extremely sympathetic to the problem and can see that people who took out a lasting power of attorney, or prior to that an enduring power of attorney, and never expected to live as long as they have could now find that the donee is at greater risk of becoming frail than they anticipated. Donors are outliving their prognosis not just by months, but by years and possibly decades.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
It strikes me that Amendment 87E would apply not only to this Bill but to other Acts. Does it fit here? I understand the principle of what my noble friend is saying.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
It could have wide-reaching consequences, but a lot of people who have lost capacity and are in a state of high dependency are already in nursing homes, so they are already being cared for in the system and may be subject to deprivation of liberty. Some of them have long-term continuing funding for their care, but they have been there for a long time and the donee, who is managing all their affairs and advocating on their behalf, is very concerned about their welfare in the event of them failing.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling amendments in this group. I am very aware of the complexity of this issue. For a lay person such as me, some of the terminology can be confusing. I will do my level best to be as clear as humanly possible, but if I fail in that endeavour I will write to noble Lords and explain better what I am attempting to explain now.
The effect of Amendment 83, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, would be to confirm in law that a donee of a lasting power of attorney or a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection was unable to consent on a person’s behalf to a deprivation of liberty. If they could provide such consent, the person would not be considered to be deprived of their liberty and no safeguards would need to be provided.
The Law Commission report stated that it was already the position in law that a donee or deputy could not consent to a deprivation of liberty. We confirmed in our response to the Law Commission’s report that the Government agreed with its view on the current legal position, and the Bill does not change the current situation. While the Bill creates a duty to consult with any donee of the lasting power of attorney or a deputy, it does not enable a donee or deputy to consent to the deprivation of liberty on behalf of the cared-for person. In other words, under this Bill the cared-for person would still be deprived of their liberty in those circumstances and would still need to be provided with safeguards to satisfy Article 5, which is of course the whole purpose of DoLS and liberty protection safeguards. In that sense the amendment, with which we agree, would serve only to duplicate existing legislation and is not necessary. I hope I have provided an adequate explanation to noble Lords, but obviously I am willing to set out in more detail exactly why we believe the current situation is not changed by the Bill as it stands.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Amendment 83ZA would require the Office of the Public Guardian to provide documentation, which may be in electronic form, to identify the donor and donee or donees of a lasting power of attorney and to recall the documentation if the donee’s power is revoked. As the noble Baroness pointed out, this is designed to make it easier for attorneys to provide proof of the existence of a registered LPA. It is right that there ought to be a robust system of proving that there is a valid power. My understanding is that the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Public Guardian are actively considering how to offer a digital means of providing evidence of a valid LPA, and we expect to bring forward proposals in due course. I am happy to pursue that further with colleagues in that department and that office to understand greater details of their plans and to share those with noble Lords if they are forthcoming, which I hope that they will be.
Amendment 87E, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would allow the donee of a lasting power of attorney to nominate someone to replace them if they were no longer able to fulfil their duties—I think that means if the lasting power of attorney was no longer able to fulfil their duties—while Amendment 87G would allow a replacement attorney to be nominated by the donor at the time of registering the LPA to take over the power if the donor decides to remove the power from the donee.
I do not need to reiterate to noble Lords just how critical it is to get the law and the rules in this area right; as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, pointed out, the rules around this would not apply only to this Bill. It is worth pointing out that there is provision in the original Mental Capacity Act to allow a person making a lasting power of attorney to nominate a replacement in the event that their attorney is unable to continue, but I think the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was getting at is that there is a slight chicken and egg situation here: at the point where they no longer have capacity but the person whom they have previously appointed is no longer able to fulfil their role or the cared-for person no longer wants them to do so, they cannot go back in a time machine and appoint someone else—in other words, they cannot know what they do not know. I have just made things really clear by getting all Donald Rumsfeld about it all.
Having said all that, I want to consider if there is a way of unlocking that paradox, but clearly the implications of that would go well beyond the remit of what we are discussing here. I do not want to make any promises that it is not in my power to keep. I would appreciate the opportunity to explore this further so that we can consider how to give the donor more opportunities to have a sense of choice and agency as they think ahead to the future. I would have thought that we must be able to provide for that without creating extra complications. I look forward to taking that up with the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who are interested in the topic. On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that detailed answer. As usual, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has raised some interesting challenges. In my family, someone who had enduring power of attorney died at the point they were needed. We were in a ridiculous and complex situation—resolved by good will, but the law did not help us. This is therefore a serious matter.
I understood what the Minister said about the power of attorney, and I will read his response. It sounded to me as though it was probably reasonable, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“21ZB Presumption of P giving evidence(1) This section applies where an authorisation under Schedule AA1—(a) has effect, or(b) is to have effect from a date specified under paragraph 22 of that Schedule.(2) P shall be presumed to give evidence in Court of Protection proceedings.(3) This presumption may be rebutted, having regard to P’s rights, including by evidence that P—(a) is not competent to give sworn evidence; or(b) does not wish to provide evidence (in whichever form) to the court.(4) Evidence from P shall be secured in any form that the court and the parties consider appropriate having regard to P’s circumstances and may include the following—(a) sworn evidence given orally in court;(b) unsworn evidence given orally in court;(c) unsworn evidence given outside of the court;(d) a written statement;(e) pre-recorded evidence.(5) The appropriate authority may make regulations outlining the measures that will be available to support P to give evidence in proceedings.”
Baroness Thornton
The Minister will be familiar with this amendment because it stems from Inclusion London, which drafted it. I know that it has written to him about it. It is run and controlled by disabled people, is very concerned about the Bill and wants this issue discussed.
The amendment concerns ensuring the effective participation of P in the Court of Protection proceedings. It gives P the presumed right to give evidence and sets out a number of ways in which that might happen. The organisation has copied me in to a letter to the Minister. It writes that one of the key challenges to date has been securing P’s meaningful participation in Court of Protection proceedings, something acknowledged in the 2018 Joint Committee on Human Rights report, The Right to Freedom and Safety: Reform of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Participation is an important issue for a number of reasons, including that it is more likely to place the person at the centre of the decision-making process and may change the outcome of the case. Research suggests that P rarely participates in or gives evidence in proceedings. In the light of the Government’s emphasis on providing protection for people who may lack capacity, it is asking us to consider the amendment.
This seems a reasonable point, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher
I will speak to Amendment 87C and apologise to the Committee for being unable to remain in the Chamber earlier—I had two commitments that I had to fulfil. I emphasise that it is a probing amendment; it will certainly need rewriting at Report if we bring something back. I thank Godfred Boahen of BASW, whose briefing was an enormous help in preparing my remarks.
Our aim is to stimulate a debate about the processes to deal with deprivation of liberty issues which arise in domestic settings. There is a case for enhancing the assessment processes in those situations. As it stands, the Bill makes no mention of people in domestic settings where deprivation of liberty is at issue. It is not clear—to me, anyway—what the Government have in mind and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position. The Bill leaves vulnerable individuals in domestic settings where there is an issue of deprivation of liberty with no judicial protection, except through an appeal to the Court of Protection, a process which is onerous, costly, stressful and slow. That also leaves this group of people without access to a mental capacity professional in the event of an objection to the proposed care plan. The amendment assumes that, where a deprivation of liberty arises in a domestic setting, this would be considered, as now, under either the care planning or the safeguarding provisions of the Care Act 2014, but with two important reforms, which I will come to. Thus domestic settings would not come under the processes set out in the Bill.
Before referring to the proposed reforms, I need to clarify the two key processes involved under the Care Act, or the reforms would not make a lot of sense to anybody. First is the prospective model, as proposed by the Law Commission, when a deprivation of liberty is considered during care assessments and planning. The care planning processes apply here. During a Care Act assessment of needs, professionals will ascertain the likely impact of a care plan on the liberty of an individual, whom I will call P. The idea is that, in some cases, the state has prior knowledge that a deprivation of liberty will occur and has therefore taken the necessary steps to authorise it alongside establishing conditions to safeguard P’s human rights. This could be achieved through an amendment to the Care Act guidance, not a legislative change.
The great attraction of this approach, as the Law Commission recognised, is that the safeguards are implemented in a way that minimises intrusion into private and family life. The Law Commission argues that:
“In most cases arrangements could be authorised in an unobtrusive and straightforward manner through a care plan and without a perception of State intrusion into family matters”.
In domestic situations and with the involvement of professional local authority employees in organising and undertaking the care planning, only where the care plan is contrary to the wishes of P would the involvement of the mental capacity professional be warranted. At present, the Bill does not make it clear that the MCP would be brought into domestic settings in any circumstances. This is one of the two areas in the Bill that need clarification. I am impressed that the Law Commission thinks that this approach strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of the person to be protected, and the rights to private and family life under Article 8.
The second model for the deprivation of liberty in domestic settings is the retrospective model, where the safeguarding procedures under the Care Act 2014 come into play. Under Section 42(1) of that Act the safeguarding procedures apply to an adult who satisfies three conditions, which I do not need to go into. The safeguarding process involves P from the very beginning. There are certain crucial points about these processes: their desired outcomes should be considered; professionals have to balance P’s capacity against their best interests and the public interest; and the safeguarding provisions draw significantly on the best-interests principle of the Mental Capacity Act. If deprivation of liberty is an issue, then the Care Act safeguarding provisions and the Mental Capacity Act best-interests principle can be applied to generate a care plan which safeguards P’s interests while providing care and protection.
Within the safeguarding provisions an independent advocate is appointed when appropriate. What is currently lacking is access to a mental capacity professional in the event that P has concerns about or objections to the care plan. An amendment bringing the MCP into safeguarding in domestic settings is needed to align people in such settings with those in others.
My last point relates to the requirement under the European Convention on Human Rights that if P is deprived of their liberty, they must have access to a court. I have already referred to the current arrangement for access to the Court of Protection as the only court route. I urge the Minister to consider seriously the possibility that mental health tribunals could be adapted to become mental health and capacity tribunals to include those in domestic settings where P is objecting to the care plan.
Mental health tribunals already consider whether and how their judgments and the conditions they impose on patients might amount to a deprivation of liberty. Additionally, they have experience of the issues involved in deprivation of liberty considerations in domestic settings. This would not be something outside their competence, and that is very important. It would be too radical to introduce something entirely different. Such tribunals are local and would be speedier, less costly and more accessible for families who are themselves often vulnerable. They are less imposing and therefore less stressful for those involved.
Consider the case brought to my attention recently of an 85 year-old woman looking after her 89 year-old husband, who had severe dementia. She felt she could only cope by keeping her husband in one room. The idea of taking that case to the Court of Protection just feels unreasonable. It certainly needs sorting out in some way, but not that way. In line with the estimated number of appeals to the tribunals, clearly, the number of tribunal members would need to increase. However, as well as having advantages for those involved, this reform would surely be less costly than the current Court of Protection process. I hope we can have a short but constructive debate today and that the Minister will meet us to discuss the best way forward. It might not be exactly what I have suggested, but we really need to think this through carefully. I beg to move.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Meacher, but I will sound a few words of caution. As I understand it, cases in domestic settings are not included under the current DoLS arrangements. However, there have been several cases where Cheshire West has been quoted in instances where domestic settings have been challenged—with, in my view, some ludicrous outcomes. These have put people who were doing their best by their relatives, as they saw it, in the invidious position that they could no longer continue to care.
I have a case that is similar to that of my noble friend Lady Meacher, where a man was looking after his elderly mother at home. She wandered on most nights, and he put some gates at the top of the stairs to stop her falling down the stairs. That allowed him to get a good night’s sleep and she did not go downstairs. It is a very difficult issue: there was the question of whether she could have gone over the gates and come to more harm. He was also told by the professional carer who was helping him—from a private care provider—that he could not do this because it was illegal. Under the legislation, it was now not possible for him to do that, nor could he put a lock that she could not undo on the outside door. He would have to accompany her if she wanted to go out and come back. The implication is quite clear: he actually gave up caring for her because, as he said, if he could not look after his mother in his own home, he was not going to be able to have a life that was possible for him to live. I have no doubt in my mind that that elderly woman would have given her last sixpence to stay at home being cared for under her son’s restrictions, rather than go into a care home with strangers. She would probably have had her liberty restricted anyway under some new procedures.
We have to come back to this numbers game, because we want a situation where it is only in cases involving people being treated inappropriately, with cruelty and thoughtlessness, where we want to expose something that is just unacceptable. When we are challenging arrangements that would, if they were for a person of a different age, for example a parent protecting a child—when we are putting in the same things because somebody is mentally incapacitated, it is quite wrong.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Meacher and the comments that my noble friend Lady Murphy just made. She said that she can speak only for the 900,000 people in this country with dementia—but that is a high proportion. I want to share with noble Lords that everything she said I agree with, as part of a multidisciplinary team but also because over 20 years ago she was my external examiner for my PhD—and I passed. The subject was about supporting people with dementia in the community, so this is close to both our hearts.
I will add a little to this debate. I support the amendment for two reasons. First, at the very least we need to think again about the Bill’s application to individuals in domestic settings; and, secondly, we need to think carefully about how domestic care arrangements can be authorised under a liberty protection safeguard and oversight properly maintained over the period of care—which may be for many years, because I agree that things change over that period. One of the things that can happen is that carers who are very good when you first see them are at the end of their tether three years later and can no longer manage. That is why the Law Commission suggests that the LPS should be integrated into care planning arrangements—but that does require regular review.
It may be feasible to amend the Bill so that the LPS could apply with the safeguarding professions of the Care Act, as my noble friend Lady Meacher has already said. Certainly there is a need to ensure that those who lack capacity are safeguarded when they are being looked after in domestic settings, as, sadly, we know that in a very small minority of cases deprivation of liberty occurs through carers’ lack of knowledge of alternative methods to maintain safety, and in even rarer cases in fact becomes a form of abuse. However, the current Bill, if enacted with a zealous approach by professionals, could become a serious intrusion into families’ rights to provide individualised, possibly slightly idiosyncratic care for their relative, which may be fully consistent with how both parties wish to behave within the confines of their family unit and own home. I therefore hope that we will be able to work with the Minister, and the Bill team as appropriate, to improve the Bill to better balance the rights of people being cared for by relatives in their own home, without unwarranted intrusion into the way in which families support and care for relatives with limited mental capacity, while ensuring that deprivation of liberty is appropriate to safeguard the individual.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for tabling this amendment, which I support. I will keep my remarks very brief and make just two points.
The first point is about the spirit of the amendment. Clearly it aims to avoid broadening the scope of the legislation to apply to people who lack capacity and are living at home but who may need their liberty to be restrained. My comments relate to the 450,000 people mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy: those for whom there may be no formal care plan in place. I want to consider how issues relating to safeguarding and deprivation of liberty would be identified; namely, how do we uphold the rights of vulnerable people in those situations?
If we think in practical terms, there are potentially two routes to safeguard those cared-for people: one is the Mental Capacity Act and the other is the Care Act. I strongly agree that the Care Act 2014 is the route that we should go down. In almost every family, there will be multiple health professionals involved, either by going into the home or through appointments. They are equipped to identify both the safeguarding and the deprivation of liberty issues. It is through the Care Act that we can have the most human and proportionate response for those families.
Secondly, I want to deal with the point behind what the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, alluded to: cases where somebody is being cared for at home but then perhaps their carer has a fall and has to go into hospital, and the cared-for person then briefly goes into a care home and is therefore subject to liberty protection safeguards. What is the status of those safeguards when that person returns home? It would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, said, these arrangements might be idiosyncratic, but almost all of us have had experience of them and we value them greatly.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I want to make a couple of quick points. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, is of course right that the whole issue of DoLS and the community is known to be a problem. However, the examples she gave seem to me to be examples of people not understanding the DoLS legislation and applying it wrongly, rather than the legislation necessarily being wrong. It is always important to make the case for the rights of families to reject undue intrusion, but I want to share with her the case of a young man with whom a learning disability organisation was working. The organisation achieved great results and he did really well. Prior to his involvement with the organisation, he would sit all day in a part of the living room that had been bricked off by his parents, with his own chair, his own television and being fed through a hatch. That was in a domestic setting. I need not tell the noble Baroness that we need to be quite careful when drawing up legislation.
It is a great shame that we have been presented yet again with a piece of legislation that came out of nowhere when we could have had a proper consultation. The people who are out working in the field at the moment having to administer DoLS understand many of the problems. They know that issues that arose partially from the application of the Cheshire West ruling and the High Court judgment have caused a problem. But amending a really bad Bill is not the way to deal with this problem.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
I want to make a couple of points, but I first draw the attention of noble Lords to my interests in the register relating to learning disability. It is interesting how to read this amendment. I looked at it and thought about individuals in domestic settings, and the charity that I chair does just that. We put four or five individuals into a domestic setting. A proportion of them will have a DoLS. If noble Lords go into the house, it looks just like an ordinary home. Each resident pays rent and would consider it very much their home. Carers offer 24-hour support and locks are well and truly in evidence. Over the weekend, I asked our director of operations what proportion of the people we support were subject to DoLS, and she said thousands. It is just the norm.
I understand that the noble Baroness’s intention was to take this into a family setting where there is mum, dad and a child who may well be an adult—certainly, we see parents in their 80s caring for their children with a learning disability who may be in their late 50s or late 60s, and the parents are at their wits’ end. All that fits with this amendment so, whatever its merits, the wording needs to change but it is certainly worth pursuing.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for leading this debate. Obviously, the bulk of the debate focused on Amendment 87C, which would exclude people residing in domestic settings, and we have discussed the merits of that approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, gave a thorough exploration of alternatives to the LPS system in a domestic setting. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, gave a passionate defence of the role of families in caring, which was perhaps accentuated by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, talking about the need to avoid overzealous application of any new provision of deprivation of liberty safeguards. My noble friend Lady Barran talked particularly about the group of people who lack a care plan and their interaction with the care system if they go temporarily into a care home. For me, all that brought home that we have further work to do on the appropriate system that applies in a domestic setting, to put it shortly.
It was helpful that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, told us the story about the vulnerable person. We all agree that something needs to happen in that case to check the actions of the family or help the family to do better. They may just not know what to do or be at their wits’ end—who knows? We can imagine how easy it is to fall into those situations not out of intention but out of pressure and circumstance. That debate highlighted how important it is to get that right. I absolutely want to avoid intrusion where it is not necessary, but equally we need to ensure that those people deprived of their liberty receive the proper protections due to them under Article 5 of the ECHR. This is an issue that clearly needs more work. The amendment was not designed to perfect the solution but rather to start the conversation, and it is absolutely one that we will take through with noble Lords.
I turn briefly to Amendment 83B, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which seeks to introduce a legal presumption that a person should give evidence in all Court of Protection proceedings. Obviously I agree with her about the importance of this issue. She called it a reasonable point and I think it more than reasonable. It is essential that in any court proceedings a person’s rights are protected and that the cared-for person has the opportunity to give evidence to the court in any case concerning the deprivation of liberty. I am happy to be able to confirm that this is already reflected in the Court of Protection rules. The court’s overriding objective under the rules is to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. They expressly include ensuring that the person’s interests and position are properly considered and that the parties are on an equal footing. A new set of rules was introduced less than a year ago. They include changes to ensure that a person is able to participate in proceedings. Specifically, rule 1.2 requires the court to consider in every case how best to secure the cared-for person’s participation. It sets out a range of options including the cared-for person addressing the court directly, indirectly or with support from a representative, a litigation friend or an accredited legal representative. I hope that that provides the noble Baroness with the clarification that she was looking for and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister very genuinely for an encouraging and positive response. I recognise that this matter of deprivation of liberty in domestic settings needs to be addressed and that we need to have a conversation about exactly how it should be done. I also thank my noble friends Lady Murphy and Lady Watkins and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for putting their names to my amendment, albeit that it still needs a lot of work. I am grateful for their helpful comments, along with those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Barker. I look forward to discussions with the Minister and others.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. The grouping is slightly odd, but I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has joined in; I notice that she has been sitting in her place for the whole of our proceedings. We have had a useful discussion and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jolly
“Requirements before commencement
(1) Before all provisions of this Act other than those which come into force on its passing can come into force, the requirements under subsection (2) must be met. (2) The requirements are as follows—(a) the Secretary of State must publish an updated code of practice giving guidance for decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, including the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that are amended by this Act; and(b) the Secretary of State must publish a response to the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act, chaired by Professor Sir Simon Wessely.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the publications required by subsection (2) before both Houses of Parliament.”
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 87, 93 and 94 and address the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Tyler and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. Amendments 93 and 94 are simply enabling provisions.
Amendments 86 and 87 would require that, before the implementation date of this legislation, the Secretary of State should lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of the updated code of practice giving guidance as well as a response to the review of the Mental Health Act that Sir Simon Wessely is carrying out. We have been half guessing in our discussions what might or might not be in it.
The Bill is not particularly easy to read and it is certainly not a guide for practice, and the ensuing Act will not be easy to read either—unlike the Care Act. The code of practice is absolutely critical to take professionals through what the legislation will entail and what they will have to implement in their practice. To that end, I have a little list. I wonder whether the Minister can indicate or confirm whether these issues will be covered in the code: the basis for detention and when the “necessary and proportionate” test applies; the role of IMCAs and appropriate persons; the professional qualifications and training of those undertaking pre-authorisation reviews; when an AMCP referral should be made; and obligations to provide information to the person and their family about the authorisation. The Minister may not have the answers on his person or from the Dispatch Box right now, but perhaps he could write to me and make that clear.
To make this happen, we would need subsection (2)(a) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 86 and a year’s wait. Many noble Lords have spoken both on and off and in Committee about the Mental Health Act. In our previous debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to the work of Sir Simon in reviewing that Act along with the Act we are trying to amend now. Between them, the two Acts define, among other things, the care and rights of the most vulnerable—those with mental health conditions and those lacking capacity—who are unable to make decisions about their care. Sometimes, but not always, there may be an overlap. It would not be prudent for the Bill to end its passage through Parliament without us learning the findings of the Wessely review and determining whether it is necessary to amend the Bill further—hence the need for subsection (2)(b) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 86. Earlier today, the Minister spoke about pushing ahead. I understand the need for urgency, but I fear that if we pass the Bill in haste, we may end up repenting or regretting at leisure. That is just me being slightly cautious.
Amendment 87 calls for the Secretary of State to,
“lay a copy of the report before both Houses”.
He or she—who knows who it will be by then—is being asked to look at how the Act is working and whether they are confident that there is an improvement in the process surrounding the deprivation of liberty. We have all discussed this issue; the Minister will have detected the Committee’s concern about this area of the Bill. Basically, I am calling for the Secretary of State to report back on the impact of the Act and ensure that the code is well and truly in place before we start to use the Act in earnest.
I added my name in support of my noble friend Lady Tyler’s amendment, which seeks to ensure that regulations are scrutinised and debated in both Houses. It would also ensure that consultation takes place outside Parliament, which is critical. It is fine for us to debate these issues here—clearly, some people have more experience and understanding than others—but I get many letters from not just individuals who are, or would be, affected by the Bill but the sector, saying, “Keep the Government’s feet to the fire. Make sure we get the very best Bill we can”. I do not doubt at all the Minister’s intention to achieve that end, but the devil is in the detail and there is a lot of it. We must make sure that we get this right through primary legislation. As I said, there is much expertise but we all welcome the opportunity to look at the detail of regulations, both accompanying primary legislation and in any future proposed changes.
Under DoLS, a number of important things were set out in regulations, particularly: who best interests assessors were and how they were to discharge their duties; the timeframe for carrying out assessments; the type of information that would need to be collected; and details of how disputes might be resolved. As my noble friend Lady Tyler will highlight, this is not just about ensuring that regulations are debated; it is about how those in the sector—families and vulnerable people themselves, I would suggest—are consulted and involved in getting the detail right in both initial regulations and any subsequent changes down the line.
To bring this matter into sharper focus, I wonder if the Minister might be able to confirm what he thinks might go into regulation? I hope he would also confirm that regulations laid accompanying this Bill, and any amendments down the line, are subject to the fullest scrutiny both in this House and in the sector. This will mean a decent time gap will have to be found between the laying of the regulations and the debates in both Houses.
I welcome Amendment 92, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, which would see another two independent reports commissioned by the Government. They would be laid within two and four years of implementation, to provide a valuable update as to how implementation was proceeding and highlight areas for improvement. We will need to monitor the implementation of the Act, however it may end up, really closely. We are dealing with the most vulnerable in our society.
These amendments are based on the PIP independent reviews, which have proven successful in highlighting problems. While I am sure many in this House would agree that there are still things to improve in terms of personal independence payments, the oversight provided by the independent reviews has been invaluable in terms of recommending important changes aiding implementation. There are many important issues to review: best interests decisions—ensuring that they are just that, and not based on commercial or other considerations; a monitor of advocacy offered and its uptake; the involvement of P—the cared-for person—and not just professionals, but also those who care for P, and the families of P. I am happy to support those particular amendments, and beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I have three amendments, starting with Amendment 87A. It sets out a number of requirements before the Act can come into force, embracing a set of independent reports that I would like to see commissioned by the Secretary of State. They address work on the rewording of the expression “unsound mind”; the availability of independent advocacy; appeals on behalf of cared-for persons; the availability of legal aid and support for cared-for persons participating in court proceedings; and short and long-term costs for implementing provision bills for local authorities, the courts and the health service. I recognise some of these points have already been discussed, on the second day of Committee in particular, and the Government are bringing forward amendments so the Bill reflects the need to consult the cared-for person. The Minister also agreed to look further at the expression “unsound mind”, which many believe is stigmatising and outdated language.
I hope the Government might just go further. This amendment is based on the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and reflects some of the issues it would like to see covered in legislation. I will not comment in detail, but I want to come back to the role of the Court of Protection. We discussed this on the second day of our proceedings, and I think the Committee was informed by the view that recourse to the Court of Protection should be avoided wherever possible, because of the stresses and strains involved and the cost. I am certainly conscious that we do not want to create a situation where mental capacity professionals defer their responsibility to the court, and individuals have to undergo court procedures unnecessarily.
According to Dr Lucy Series of the School of Law and Politics at Cardiff University, while the cost and stress of applications to the Court of Protection is undeniable, research by Cardiff has shown that the Government have taken the decision not to reform the Court of Protection, which would make it less costly, less stressful and more like the tribunal approach that many noble Lords would like to see. It is instead being managed by, essentially, restricting access to justice. A week ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, said that,
“if a person wants to challenge their authorisation in the Court of Protection they have the right to do so”.—[Official Report, 15/10/18; col. 371.]
However, the practicalities are that people may experience extreme difficulty initiating a court action without assistance, as will their families. The evidence on this matter was very clear to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act and the Law Commission. I hope that the Government will consider it.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group and my name is attached to four others. It is a little unfortunate that we are coming to this important group of amendments, which affect the Bill as a whole—there are some very important implementation issues—quite so late in the day when the appetite for debate is understandably somewhat limited.
My Amendment 88 seeks to do two things. It seeks, first, to enhance scrutiny of regulations in Parliament and, secondly, to ensure proper consultation if the Government seek to amend regulations later on down the line. According to the Explanatory Notes, as drafted the regulations are subject to the negative procedure, except where the Secretary of State wishes to change primary legislation, in which case the affirmative procedure applies. My amendment proposes a different approach, whereby the positive procedure applies in both cases. That would mean that, should the Government wish to amend regulations, such a change would automatically trigger scrutiny in both Houses. Why do I think this is important? Fundamentally, depriving someone of their liberty is a very major and fundamental action which warrants strong safeguards and scrutiny. I think it is absolutely vital that we closely monitor the implementation of this legislation and debate any proposed changes that the Government may wish to introduce.
The second part of my amendment—which I think is equally important—means that, before laying a regulation, the Government must consult with stakeholders on its potential impact. Again, given that this legislation concerns extremely vulnerable people, it is absolutely vital that we get it right—that is both primary legislation and the detail of any regulations. One of the threads throughout our debate in Committee, both today and in our two previous sessions, has been that, while the Law Commission consulted widely on its draft Bill, the Government’s Bill, which we are now discussing—and which is very different in a number of important aspects—was introduced with very little consultation with those who work in the sector. It is absolutely vital that we hear from mental health practitioners, legal professionals, charities and those representing vulnerable people.
Amendment 87F is a probing amendment and it is to highlight the current unsatisfactory situation, which I gather is causing real concern to clinicians in relation to when they are obliged to complete court reports requested by the Court of Protection. This issue was drawn to my attention by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and I draw the House’s attention to my interests in the register. Currently, Section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 authorises courts to,
“require a local authority, or an NHS body”,
to prepare a report on such matters,
“as the court may direct”—
generally, the relevant person’s mental health or mental capacity.
I understand that drafting such a report requires a senior clinician to review previous reports, examine the patient, talk to family members or carers and carry out necessary tests. Notably, it often relates to a patient who has never been under the care of that clinician or even the hospital trust employing them. I have been told that the average time required to complete such a report—although it varies—would be around 10 hours, which does not include the extra time required if the clinician is required to attend court in person to give evidence.
The nub with the concern here, which has been raised by many clinicians, is that an unknown quantity of clinician time is being taken away from front-line patient care. As there is no national data, as I understand, on this, it is unclear how much. Again, as I understand it, CCGs and NHS trusts are not being paid for or equipped for their staff to be required to spend their time in such a way, and the very short timeframe often set by the court can lead to very considerable disruption of clinical priorities and patient appointments being changed at the very last minute.
I emphasise that I have no problems with the Court of Protection needing reports and expert advice—it is just that the system for getting it does not seem right to me, with the NHS being required to provide these reports in such a way. Frankly, there is cost shunting on to the NHS, but it is also having no regard for the impact on wider patient care. The Minister has said that he will be talking to the MoJ about a number of things. It would be very helpful to hear how the MoJ thinks this system could be better managed so it does not have such a deleterious effect on wider patient care. The purpose of this amendment is to get the Minister to explain and outline the Government’s thinking in this area.
Finally, Amendments 86 and 93 require two very crucial documents to be laid before Parliament before the provisions of the Act can come into force: the code of practice and the Government response to the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act. It is really where we started off this evening—certainly where I started off was looking at the interaction of those two pieces of legislation.
The one point I will make is that whatever recommendations the Mental Health Act review ends up making, it is clear that as long as we have separate legislation to govern mental illness and mental capacity, we absolutely must consider the interaction between those two frameworks. In terms of implementation, the early introduction of the Bill prevents the review from making suggestions that touch on the scope of the LPSs we are discussing. Therefore, it is crucial that the Government respond to the review’s recommendations before the LPSs that we are talking about at the moment can come into force.
Baroness Barran
I am sorry to take noble Lords back a step to Amendment 87D, which is in my name and is really a probing amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her very warm support—she has unfortunately had to run for a train, but I am grateful to her.
It seemed to me, in thinking about this amendment, that there are a couple of points in the process of authorising liberty protection safeguards where there needs to be real rigour to check that the best interests of the cared-for person lacking capacity are upheld and that the least restrictive option is found in terms of depriving them of their liberty. We spent a lot of valuable time looking at the role of the care home manager in relation to this. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, was also alluding in part, in her Amendment 66, to the second actor in this, namely the responsible body. My amendment explores the role of the responsible body.
The first part of the amendment seeks to address the role of the responsible body, which, as I understand it, is effectively a safety net in the process. The aim is to encourage the responsible body to identify cases where it is more likely that those two key considerations have not been upheld. The second part of the amendment sets out a course to follow if that is the case. What I have been trying to imagine is what it is like to be sitting in the responsible body, the local authority or the hospital, with a pile of LPS forms to authorise. How can we keep the person doing that alert and using their discretion appropriately?
In the first part of the amendment, what I am getting at is a way to set clear criteria for the responsible body to follow, such that if the criteria were met it would trigger a review of the applications in more detail. I do not have a definitive list of what those criteria might be but, for example, one might imagine that if the care home in which the cared-for person was going to reside had been rated as inadequate by the CQC, it might be a prompt for a further review, if that care home manager had arranged the assessment.
Other possible criteria might involve what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to as “unbefriended” people. I am much sure whether this is technically unbefriended, so forgive me, but if someone has no friends or family and a carer has some kind of indirect financial interest in the outcome of the decision, that might be another case of where these criteria might trigger further review. The assumption would be that this amendment would apply whatever the source of funding for the cared-for person. There may be other criteria that would be more helpful, and I am sure that noble Lords who are more experienced in this area than I am will think of what these might be.
In the second part of the amendment, I have simply suggested that, if there is cause to examine an application more closely, it should follow the pathway set out in paragraph 18 of new Schedule AAl. Obviously, if this route is taken, consideration needs to be given to resources, since we do not want to create a conflict of interest for the responsible body—the mirror image of some of the conflicts we have talked about for the care home manager. We certainly want to avoid a situation where there is a financial disincentive to review those cases which genuinely warrant a review.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, this group of amendments covers a range of things that need to be done before the commencement of the Act, and steps that should be followed later, as proposed by my Amendment 92. Noble Lords have made powerful arguments in favour of their amendments. In view of the lateness of the hour, I will confine my remarks to Amendment 92, tabled in my name, with the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Jolly.
Amendment 92 would see two independent reports commissioned by the Government to be laid before Parliament within two and four years of the Act becoming law. The reports would provide a valuable update on how implementation was proceeding and would highlight areas for improvement. It has often been said that the Mental Capacity Act is a good piece of legislation that has been poorly implemented. If we want to see this Bill strengthened in all the areas we wish it to be, we will also need to monitor its implementation extremely closely, not least because the legislation affects some of the most vulnerable in our society and concerns their freedoms. Hundreds of thousands of people across England and Wales will be affected.
The amendment is modelled on the independent reviews that have accompanied the introduction of personal independence payments. The proposed report could look at a number of things: first, that decisions on whether someone’s liberty is restricted are truly being made in the best interests of the individual and not in the interests of providers or commissioners; secondly, that training is effective and ongoing and reinforces the rights of the individual; thirdly, that families and carers are involved and consulted as appropriate; and, fourthly, that advocacy is available to all who need it and is delivered effectively and impartially. Some very powerful arguments have been made in this short debate. I hope that the Minister will listen and that the Government will respond positively.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. We have had a wide-ranging debate on areas where they would like to see various enactments, changes, reports and so on, before commencement and following implementation. I will attempt to deal with them thematically.
Amendment 86 requires that before commencement the Government must publish the code of practice and our response to the Mental Health Act review. Amendments 93 and 94 update Clause 5 to reflect this. I am happy to confirm that the Government will have published both of these before the new system commences.
Amendment 87 requires that the effectiveness of the Act is reviewed and a report laid in Parliament within a year of the Bill coming into force. As the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, just pointed out, Amendment 92 requires the Secretary of State to commission two independent reports on the operation of the new liberty protection safeguards scheme two and four years after the new system comes into force. Again, I am happy to assure noble Lords that the Government routinely conduct post-legislative scrutiny for all new Acts. The relevant guide says that within three to five years of Royal Assent the Government will be required to submit a memorandum to the relevant departmental select committee with a preliminary assessment of how the Act has worked in practice. I am happy to confirm that the Bill will receive such scrutiny and the Health Select Committee will be informed.
Amendment 87A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, details requirements regarding a number of topics. As he pointed out, a number of these have already been addressed in our debates, including unsound mind, issues around advance consent, the availability of non-means-tested legal aid, and others. We have had a debate on the rules and guidance around IMCAs, which we are clearly going to take forward. He focused on tribunals. The Government are reviewing the courts and tribunals system but that review has not concluded. We are not proposing to change the position on the Court of Protection hearing challenges to liberty protection safeguards in the Bill precisely because there is not yet an opinion or a policy change from the Government with regard to a proposed new system. He also asked about the cost implications, which are outlined in our impact assessment, as he will know.
The noble Lord’s second amendment, Amendment 87B, seeks to make the CQC the regulator for the liberty protection safeguards. The Bill allows for bodies to be prescribed to report and monitor the scheme and it is absolutely our intention that the CQC takes on this role in England. It clearly has an important role in oversight of the new system, although we are concerned that his amendment would introduce additional layers of regulation. It should also be pointed out that the CQC is an England-only organisation; in Wales, the overseeing regulators are expected to be Healthcare Inspectorate Wales and Care Inspectorate Wales, which will both take on this role.
Amendment 87D was tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It would require responsible bodies to consider criteria to be published by the Secretary of State around best interests and the least restrictive option before authorisations are approved under the liberty protection safeguards. These are of course absolutely key principles of the Mental Capacity Act, and responsible bodies will have to consider them as part of any authorisation. As I have set out in previous debates, these factors already form part of the necessary and proportionate assessments, as well as other factors such as considering the wishes and feelings of the person. We will explain in the code how this assessment should be carried out and the factors that assessors should have regard to. I am grateful to my noble friend for some suggestions in that regard and I have just confirmed that the code would be published before commencement of the new scheme.
Amendment 87F, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, would remove the power of the Court of Protection to call for reports from local authorities and NHS bodies in cases relating to a cared-for person under the schedule. We think it is important, as I am sure she does, that the Court of Protection has access to such information but I heard the story that she told about an undue burden. I am certainly happy to commit to her that I will speak to colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to see whether there is any way that this process can be improved without removing the ability of the court to access the information it needs to make proper determinations.
Amendment 92A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, seeks to ensure that the liberty protection safeguards do not apply to any existing or pending DoLS authorisations. I can confirm that existing DoLS authorisations can continue until they are due for renewal or review. Clearly, depending on the final outcome of the Bill, the frequency with which those are renewed or reviewed will mean that there will be a steady stream of DoLS authorisations coming under the liberty protection safeguards in future, for those that are rolled over. Careful work will clearly need to be done with the sector to ensure that a tsunami of new authorisations does not happen but allowing for authorisations to continue under the previous system, until they can reach review or renewal, should go some way toward mitigating that risk.
Finally, Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, states that regulations should be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure and a consultation requirement. We have of course asked the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its opinion on the regulation-making powers within the Bill and it has accepted that the negative procedure provides appropriate parliamentary oversight. As the Committee knows, we go against the DPRRC’s recommendations at our peril.
I apologise for detaining the Committee for six or seven minutes but I wanted to be thorough. I hope that I have been able to give the reassurances that noble Lords were looking for about the safeguards that we will put in place before commencement and the reviews of effectiveness to ensure that the system is working as intended. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Baroness Jolly
I thank the Minister and others who have spoken on this group. We all want to ensure that the new mental capacity Act—presumably of 2019—works and that the Department of Health and Social Care monitors its implementation. I know that we on these Benches look forward to working with the Minister and others between now and Report to ensure that the Bill is actually fit for purpose. I gently suggest that a longer time gap than is usual between Committee and Report might be needed. I guess that those conversations might need to be held with the usual channels but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“Compatibility with European Convention on Human Rights
So far as it is possible to do so, all provisions under this Act must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Article 5 (Right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Baroness Thornton
This is the last amendment, and I will be very brief. It is quite appropriate that the last amendment we consider is about Article 5 of the ECHR, which is about the core of the Bill: people’s liberty and the deprivation of it. I have four things to say. The reason this amendment is so important is because it addresses the things that we have found lacking in the Bill which we feel need to be addressed. They are: the availability of information; advocacy and the fact that people need to have access to champions; representation; and the conflict of interest that arises when a detainer is required to assess a detainee. Particularly where a financial interest is in play, it is obvious that it has to be addressed if the proposals in the Bill are to be Article 5 compliant, which they need to be. That is the test that we need to apply to the Bill all the way through. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness has given us this opportunity to discuss a really important matter, albeit that it is late at night. I noted what the Minister said at various times throughout the debate about reliance on the code of practice. He will know that, as we have been trying to make clear all the way through the debate on the Bill, if some rights are not statutory rights in the Bill, then compliance is inn question. I rather suspect that the Bill that was presented to us was not compliant. I do not see how a Bill which, on the face of it, would enable somebody to be detained without being met and assessed by a professional person could be compliant.
There are a number of key matters which the Government are, at the moment, talking about putting into the code of practice—perhaps, possibly on a good day, into regulations—but which need to go back into the Bill. If they do not, the responsible body will not have the statutory responsibility to see that they are carried out. They are: the basis for the detention and the necessary and proportionate test and when that test applies; the role of IMCAs and access to appropriate persons; professional qualifications and training for people undertaking those pre-authorisation reviews; where an AMCP referral should be made; and the obligation to provide information to the person and their family about authorisation. All those things are important.
I say from these Benches that if we do not have considerable movement towards putting those things into the Bill, however briefly, the Bill will still be in trouble when we come to Report.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I have spoken several times in Committee about my concern that the Bill as it stands is an assault on human rights. I have also mentioned in past debates that I am proud of the reputation of the all-party British delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, so ably led by Sir Roger Gale, which has a proud record of defending human rights in that body. Article 5 of the ECHR protects our right to liberty and security. It focuses on protecting individuals’ freedom from unreasonable detention as opposed to protecting personal safety. As a result of Article 5, your Lordships and I have a right to personal freedom. That means we must not be imprisoned or detained without good reason. The Bill before us is about the quality of life, and the care and the respect of some of our most vulnerable fellow citizens. This amendment is about giving our fellow citizens, who may not have the capacity to defend themselves in the way that we take for granted, the same rights that we enjoy.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My Lords, this is a good way to finish our Committee proceedings. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for tabling the amendment, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for speaking to it.
Clearly, not only ought it to be the case that the Bill is compliant with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but it is also important to make it clear, as I did at the point of the introduction of the Bill, that its provisions are compatible with Article 5. As noble Lords will know, and as becomes painfully clear when you become a Minister and you see your name on printed Bills giving these kinds of reassurances, that is a process that we need to go through before introducing legislation. Clearly, there are still concerns about whether the Bill can be improved in giving force, as the noble Lord pointed out, to the rights under Article 5. Nevertheless, it is my view that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR.
Furthermore, because of Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1988, primary and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect to in a way that is compatible with convention rights. It is already the case that the Bill must be read and given effect to in a way that is compatible with Article 5. My concern with the approach here is therefore not so much one of repetition but one of partiality because it only talks about Article 5. There is therefore a risk that if we implied that this legislation had only to comply, or had a special duty to comply, with Article 5 of the convention rather than the whole convention, that would not reflect our responsibilities under the Human Rights Act. Indeed, it could downplay critical protections that exist in the ECHR, such as the Article 8 rights to family and private life. So while I understand the motivation behind tabling the amendment and using it as an opportunity to rehearse some of the desire to improve the actions that will safeguard the liberty and security of the person, I do not think it is right to put such a clause in the Bill precisely because the Government have a broad responsibility to ensure not only that the Bill is compliant but that it is read and given effect to in a way that is compatible with all convention rights.
I hope that has provided reassurance to noble Lords that our intention, and indeed our obligation, is to provide not only for those Article 5 rights but for all other rights that apply under the ECHR. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that answer, and for his recognition that the reason for tabling the amendment at this point in the Bill was to allow us to say that these were the issues we needed to address, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and my noble friend Lord Touhig outlined. I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.