House of Commons
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
It has been brought to my attention that some football skills were displayed in the Chamber yesterday evening after the House rose. I am informed that the Doorkeepers on duty told the Members concerned that the Chamber was not the place for that activity. However, those Doorkeepers were advised that permission had been given. Let me assure the House that that permission certainly did not come from me.
I have received gracious—indeed, fulsome—letters of apology from the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) in relation to this incident. I think I can speak for us all when I say that our historic Chamber should not be used for this type of activity, and I gently remind colleagues that if they are seeking to use the Chamber outside of sitting hours, other than for the purpose of simply showing it to guests, frankly they should write to me asking for their request to be considered. I have said what I have said. There are no hard feelings, and I consider the matter to be closed.
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
We have provided £129 million towards alleviating the crisis in Bangladesh since August last year and helped to reach nearly 1 million people with life-saving support. We will continue to be a leader in the international response, supporting the Government of Bangladesh to meet the ongoing needs of the Rohingya refugees and host communities.
Mary Robinson
The first official day of repatriating thousands of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar ended in failure last week, after no one agreed to voluntarily return. In that context, is the Department constructing its aid programme to reflect the fact that the vast majority of Rohingya refugees will be in Bangladesh for the foreseeable future?
Penny Mordaunt
I am pleased to say that the Government of Bangladesh have respected the principle of voluntary return and have stated, quite rightly, that they will continue to do so. Our planning approach remains that refugees and host communities will require support in Bangladesh for some time, even when credible voluntary returns processes begin.
Sir Henry Bellingham
The plight of the Rohingya people is the worst regional crisis since the Bangladesh famine of 1974, which led to 1.5 million deaths. The UK’s response has been outstanding. Can the Secretary of State say something about the pressure we are putting on other countries to meet their commitments? What is her view of the supine conduct of Aung San Suu Kyi?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that in addition to our own funding, we continue to ask other international partners to lean in. Generous international support has ensured that the current international appeal, which continues to the end of this year, is now funded to 72%. However, this is likely to be a protracted crisis, and sustained funding will be needed. What every refugee wants is to return home, and clearly the Burmese Government have a key role in providing assurances to people who want to go back home.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Many of the babies conceived last summer as a result of rape have now been born, and conditions in the camps are still abysmal. What post-natal support is being given for the babies and mothers who have been left with nothing?
Penny Mordaunt
This is one of the things that the UK in particular has been able to do. We have provided the lion’s share of the pre-birth maternity services, which ranges from the midwives who were there providing support and caring for those infants, to healthcare, vaccinations and ensuring that they are prioritised and in better facilities. Most of those births were during peak cyclone season.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The chair of the UN fact-finding mission in Myanmar has told the Security Council that the situation today is “an ongoing genocide”. Meanwhile, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says that the conditions in the country are
“not yet conducive for returns”.
Non-governmental organisations on the ground echo these grave concerns about the pending repatriations of refugees back to Myanmar. Will the Secretary of State tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that no refugee is forcibly returned to Myanmar?
Penny Mordaunt
On the point that the hon. Lady makes about accountability and justice, it is right that we must look at all options, including the International Criminal Court. Obviously, it is vital that we work with the Bangladeshi Government to ensure that more appropriate facilities are put in place for people and that the main camp is broken down. A huge amount of work has gone into ensuring that the refugees there know what their rights are, and although earlier it was described as a “failure”, actually the success of that failed repatriation was that nobody got on that bus, or felt obliged to or was coerced into getting on that bus.
Kate Osamor
We understand that the Government are concerned and we all share the concern deeply, so does the Secretary of State agree that the UNHCR is the best-placed agency to co-ordinate support to refugees on the ground? If so, is the Secretary of State concerned that the agency has reportedly not been consulted or informed about the decision to start repatriations, and what is the Department doing to address this?
Penny Mordaunt
This is incredibly important. We have long made the case—not just in Bangladesh, but in Burma—for the UN agencies to be given access and, obviously, the information that they need to co-ordinate things properly. We will continue to make the case for that. We all need to work together to make sure that these refugees are taken care of, and that eventually they will be able to go back home.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Alistair Burt)
The United Kingdom has prioritised protecting and safeguarding women and girls in the speed and scale of our response to the Rohingya crisis. Our latest funding to the crisis will reach over 250,000 people affected by sexual and gender-based violence with targeted training, psychosocial support, and sexual and reproductive health treatment.
Mohammad Yasin
Hundreds of incidents of gender-based violence are being reported each week in Rohingya refugee camps. In line with the recommendations in the 2015 global report on Security Council resolution 1325, will the Minister guarantee that all future funding for the Rohingya response allocates at least 15% to gender in the emergency programming?
Alistair Burt
We have given ring-fenced funding to protect women and girls—indeed, over and above the recommendation that the hon. Gentleman has raised—which forms part of our latest £70 million of support. We have provided 30 children-friendly spaces, 19 women’s centres and case management for over 2,000 survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this. We share his concern, and we are—practically—doing something about it.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
What practical action is being taken to ensure that the infrastructure at Cox’s Bazar improves the safety of Rohingya women and girls?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend will know that if someone goes there and sees the nature of the camp, they will realise that over a period of time improvements have been made to ensure better safety. Practical issues such as lighting, making sure that people are safe at night, is an important part of that. However, there are always concerns that there is more to be done. We have directed our efforts not just to supporting infrastructure, but to practical work with clinics and safe spaces for women and girls. Above all, this is about making sure that people have somewhere to go if they fear there is any risk, but sadly, too many people in the camps report that, as time goes on, this will still be something they need help to counter.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Last month, I attended a fundraising event held by the North East Rohingya Solidarity Campaign, which raised over £7,000 to help establish a centre for women and girls to protect those refugees from trafficking, abuse and forced prostitution. Will the Minister outline what more the Government could do to support our local communities across the UK who are standing so much in solidarity with the people described as the “most persecuted on Earth”?
Alistair Burt
First, I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and comments, and I very much support what she has been doing in her local community. With our small charities fund, Aid Match, this all goes to work to support local communities who are doing what they are doing, and to support the charities that are engaged with the work, where the United Kingdom is also providing the funding. All these things make a contribution to safe spaces, and to giving those who are running the camp the support they need to counter what they fear will be continuing issues of domestic violence and attempted trafficking in the camps the longer they are there.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)
UK aid is allocated based on need, to help to end extreme poverty by 2030 and to achieve the UN’s global goals.
Tom Pursglove
UK aid rightly makes a huge difference in crisis or disaster situations, but what steps are taken to ensure that it is deployed most effectively in those circumstances?
Harriett Baldwin
Of course, that is something we have to be constantly vigilant about in all our spending, but I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that we were successful in changing the OECD’s rules, so if a hurricane hits a relatively prosperous country and brings its income down, we can spend aid there as well.
Robert Halfon
Last week, Hamas terrorists in Gaza fired as many as 460 rockets towards Israeli civilian communities. Does the Minister share my concern that Hamas’s continued misuse of international aid worsens the suffering of the people of Gaza? How can she be sure that UK taxpayers’ money is reaching those who need it most?
Harriett Baldwin
Of course the UK Government strongly condemn Hamas’s rocket firing and are deeply concerned about the civilian casualties. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK has zero tolerance and needs to be constantly vigilant. We do not fund Hamas, of course, but we need to be extremely careful to ensure that UK aid reaches the intended beneficiaries.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Harriett Baldwin
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s consistent campaigning on the issue. She is right to draw attention to the important role that UK aid has played in the humanitarian response in Syria. I am sure that she and other hon. Members will continue to make sure that the voices of Syrian refugees in the region, and of those Syrians who have found a home here, will continue to be heard in this place.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
A Save the Children report, published today, estimates that 85,000 children have died in Yemen in the last three years, which is equivalent to the entire population of under-fives in the City of Birmingham. Nobody doubts the Government’s commitment to give aid to Yemen, but the aid is not getting through. What can be done to make sure that the people of Yemen get that money?
Harriett Baldwin
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s work on the issue. We have seen the important report today that drew that conclusion. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on Yemen later today. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that the UK Government are doing everything we can, not only to fund the humanitarian response, but to resolve the logistical challenges that face those who want to deliver humanitarian aid.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Harriett Baldwin
Yes; I reassure my right hon. Friend that children in conflict zones—there are so many of them—will continue to be a priority. I reassure hon. Members, who may have read reports that the figure was as low as 2.5%, that we do not recognise that figure. Our response to protecting children in conflict zones goes way beyond that and forms a core part of what we do.
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently point out to colleagues that we have very little time on an occasion such as this.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) is travelling with the International Development Committee. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s policy on the UK’s continued membership of UNESCO? Does she accept that the educational and cultural work of UNESCO, both here and around the world, is of immense value and is a perfectly legitimate use of her Department’s budget? How would withdrawal from UNESCO enhance the Government’s vision of a post-Brexit global Britain?
Harriett Baldwin
May I reassure the hon. Gentleman—and perhaps encourage him not to believe everything he reads in the newspapers—that the UK continues to be a member of UNESCO? We continue to look to UNESCO to follow through on the reforms it promised to undertake. We continue to work with it on that.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
In May, an International Development Committee report on official development assistance found that increasing amounts spent by other Departments had
“negligible targeting towards helping the poorest and most vulnerable.”
Just last week, the energy watchdog Platform reported UK aid being used to help oil, gas and fracking industries with their overseas market expansion. Does the Minister understand the growing concerns about the creeping, changing nature of the UK aid budget under this Government?
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman is part of a Front-Bench team that does not seem to believe in the role of the private sector at all. The Government believe that to reach the sustainable development goals—some $2.5 trillion is needed to achieve them—we need to be able to crowd in investors into other sectors. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we continue to put significant funding—some £5.8 billion—towards ensuring that more people around the world have access to clean energy.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Alistair Burt)
The UK has made official-level representations to the EU and World Bank over the past three months on the position of UNRWA. We will continue to work with UNRWA and our international partners to help ensure essential services are maintained, despite the United States’ withdrawal of funding.
Layla Moran
Given that President Trump can now in no way be considered an honest broker in this matter, is it not time that Britain stepped up to the plate and led? Will the Government consider hosting a donor conference to make up the shortfall in funding? Further, will they support my Palestinian statehood Bill, which I will be introducing to the House later today?
Alistair Burt
On the hon. Lady’s second point, she will be aware that the recognition of Palestine remains a matter for the United Kingdom’s judgment in the best interests of peace and the peace process, and we hold to that. On support for UNRWA, we continue to work with other donors and urge them to step in to assist in filling the gap in funding. We have done that with other states and we are doing that with the EU and the World Bank. We will continue to do so. We have increased our contribution this year to £57.5 million to help vulnerable Palestinians in relation to health and education. We will continue to support UNRWA.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
In June last year, UNRWA discovered a major terrorist tunnel under two of its schools in Gaza. What support can the UK give to UNRWA to ensure that its neutrality is not violated and that its resources do not get misappropriated?
Alistair Burt
Bearing in mind UNRWA’s particular position, particularly in Gaza, we know—I have discussed this with senior directors at UNRWA—it is absolutely essential that it maintains the integrity of its operation. When others have abused that in trying to disguise schools as places where terrorist activity could be hidden, it is essential that it deals with that. We will continue to give it every support in finding that out.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
The Government have no plans to devolve functions of the Department for International Development to the devolved Administrations, but we are giving people in all parts of the UK more control over how aid money is spent.
Alan Brown
Given the reported comments about the Secretary of State’s attitude to UNESCO, the UK Government’s confused position shows their real attitude to aid spending. Given that Scotland wants to remain part of UNESCO, should she not devolve aid spending to Scotland so that we can make our own decisions?
Penny Mordaunt
In line with the answer that the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), gave some moments ago, the Government’s position on UNESCO has not changed, nor has mine. We continue to monitor the quality of the multilaterals that we work with. I have funded new projects with UNESCO, looking particularly at data on education, and we will continue to do that.
Martyn Day
Scotland has a long tradition of international solidarity, particularly in responding to crisis situations, such as the recent earthquake in Indonesia. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the UK Government support the current arrangement for devolved Administrations to run international aid development programmes and that her Department has no plans to curtail or undermine these?
Penny Mordaunt
I can confirm that, and indeed, we are developing small grant programmes and UK aid match to enable more community groups, as well as Administrations, to contribute to such humanitarian disasters.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
I urge the Secretary of State to reject the representations from the party opposite, which will result in duplication, waste and less help to those who need it. Will she also take back control of our budget from the European Union?
Penny Mordaunt
This coming Monday will be the last development meeting of the EU that the UK will attend. It is my sincere wish that we will be able to continue working with our EU partners on humanitarian issues and others, but I have said that we will not do this for as long as the EU discriminates against British NGOs and suppliers.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Is it not the case that in developing countries, the brand “UK Aid” is well known and helps to promote soft power? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not do anything to mitigate that?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is right, and the Prime Minister described “UK Aid” as a “badge of hope”. We should be tremendously proud of all that the British public enable us to do.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
How important is it that the Minister maintains diligence in ensuring that fraud and corruption are avoided in delivering our aid to those who need it most?
Penny Mordaunt
That is absolutely correct. It is not just fraud and corruption and making sure that our programmes are delivering for the people who need them; we also need to help developing nations to crack down on other fraud and corruption going on. There is no point in us putting aid money into or lending money to countries when more of that money is leaving those countries every year.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
Next year, the UK will present a voluntary national review to the United Nations, setting out our progress on meeting the sustainable development goals. The Government welcome this opportunity to present all that we are doing to deliver this ambitious agenda in the UK and around the world. It is a team effort and I am incredibly proud of how so many British businesses, civil society and other groups are helping to achieve those goals. I hope that all hon. Members will encourage their constituents to share their stories during the start of this review process by going to the gov.uk portal.
Tom Pursglove
Last year, Members across the House welcomed DFID’s £3 million of funding aimed at bringing Israelis and Palestinians together. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the allocation of the funding for those projects to help to bring these groups together?
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Alistair Burt)
This invaluable programme is now up and running. It is working in Israel and the Palestinian territories to bring together young leaders and connect them, to work together on reducing tensions on inter-religious sacred sites and to help to tackle a neglected tropical disease, leishmaniasis, by working co-operatively together.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that £5.8 billion from our aid budget is to be spent in this area over the years to come and that so far it has helped 47 million people adapt to climate change around the world.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Harriett Baldwin
I am so pleased my hon. Friend had the chance to visit Kenya and see that remarkable work. We are working throughout east Africa to ensure a comprehensive approach to defence and security as well as to humanitarian issues across the region.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Alistair Burt
The situation in Libya remains extremely difficult. These abuses that come to light remind us all that Libya cannot be forgotten and that the efforts to reduce conflict and create peace must continue, as happened in Palermo last week. We are spending £75 million on safer migration routes to help tackle some of these crises, and we continue to do all we can to get people out of the difficult areas, but it requires international co-operation.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
We should praise the work of British Rotarians and Rotarians around the world for the progress they are making on eradicating this disease. When it is achieved—and it will be—it will be only the second time in humanitarian history that it has been done.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the long-term campaign work he has done on this. He will know that we have just announced some new programming to mitigate the enormous number of road traffic accidents around the world. It is not just our money but our technical support that is allowing that to happen.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly do that. I praise World Vision for the campaign and all the work it does. Children in conflict zones are a priority for my Department, and I would also like to put on the record our thanks to the Evening Standard for its War Child fundraising appeal.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As I said earlier, we continue to consider all means of holding people to account for these appalling atrocities. As well as other measures, including the recognition of citizens’ rights, justice is a major part of giving people the confidence to return.
Mr Speaker
Colleagues, Fazila Aswat, who was with our dear and departed colleague Jo Cox when she died, is in the Gallery today. Fazila, we welcome you. [Applause.]
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Today is the centenary of the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918, under which women were first allowed to stand for public office, and I am delighted that the first woman to take her seat in the House of Commons was a Conservative. Women are coming from all over the United Kingdom to the #AskHerToStand day event, with MPs from every party extending invitations to their constituents. This will be an inspirational day, which the Government are delighted to support, and we hope that it will encourage many more women to consider standing for political office both locally and nationally. It is appropriate that we are reminded of the significant contribution made to the House by female MPs, including the fine example set by the late Jo Cox.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Andrew Rosindell
The Prime Minister will know that what drives me in politics has always been a love of country and a passionate belief in our United Kingdom, so I have to tell the Prime Minister that I agree with the people of Romford. They are deeply unhappy about the proposed EU deal, which they believe does not represent the Brexit for which they voted. Will the Prime Minister now please think again, even at this late stage, and instead lead our country in a new direction, completely cutting away the tentacles of the EU from our cherished island nation once and for all?
The Prime Minister
I think that people across the country who voted to leave the European Union voted to bring an end to free movement. Our deal delivers an end to free movement. They voted to bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK. Our deal delivers an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. They voted for us to stop sending vast sums of money to the European Union every year so that we could spend that money on our priorities, and we will be able to spend it on priorities such as the national health service. However, the European Union remains a close trading partner of the United Kingdom. As we leave the EU, we want to ensure that we continue to have a good trading relationship with it, and we will be able to have an independent trade policy that will enable us to make decisions to trade around the rest of the world.
My hon. Friend is indeed a passionate champion of the United Kingdom, but he is also a passionate champion of the links that the United Kingdom has with many parts of the world—including the Commonwealth—and those can be enhanced when we leave the European Union.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for welcoming Fazila Aswat to Parliament today. She is a most welcome guest.
On the hundredth anniversary of the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act, I join the Prime Minister in welcoming all women to Parliament today as part of the #AskHerToStand campaign. We need a Parliament that truly does represent the diversity of the whole country.
Now that a number of Ministers have confirmed this morning that leaving the EU with no deal is not an option, does the Prime Minister agree that there are no circumstances in which Britain would leave with no deal?
The Prime Minister
No. I have consistently been clear on this point. The point that has been made by a number of my colleagues in relation to the vote that will come before the House—a meaningful vote on a deal from the European Union—is very simple. If we look at the alternative to that deal with the European Union, we see that it will either be more uncertainty and more division, or it could risk no Brexit at all.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister did not answer the question. Is this the final deal or not? The Work and Pensions Secretary says, “This is the deal. It’s been baked”—well, it is half-baked—but other members of the Cabinet want amendments to the withdrawal agreement. The Leader of the House said last week that there was
“still the potential to improve on…some of the measures…that’s what I’m hoping…to help with.”
Can the Prime Minister clarify whether last week’s withdrawal agreement is the final text, or is there another text that is on its way to us?
The Prime Minister
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he will not get any different answers on this than he has had from me previously. There are two parts to the deal package we are negotiating with the European Union: the leaving part, which is the withdrawal agreement; and the future relationship, which is what is continuing to be negotiated with the European Union. They go together as a package. Yes, the withdrawal agreement has been agreed in principle. The whole package will be what is brought before this House and will be what is considered at the European Union Council on Sunday, and we continue to negotiate on that future relationship to get the good deal that we believe is right for the United Kingdom: a good deal that protects jobs, protects our Union and protects our security.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister is apparently heading off to Brussels today, but the new Brexit Secretary is another non-travelling Brexit Secretary—he is apparently not going with her. I wonder if the post is now an entirely ceremonial one. The Prime Minister’s agreement does not specify how much we would have to pay to extend the transition period. Can she confirm that the choice facing the country would be either the backstop or paying whatever the EU asked us to pay to prolong that transition period?
The Prime Minister
No, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on that. Let us just remind ourselves what we are talking about: we are talking about the guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. First of all, that is best ensured by getting the future relationship in place by the end of December 2020. In the event that that was not the case for a temporary period and an interim arrangement was in place, the choice the right hon. Gentleman set out is not the choice that would be before us. Yes, there will be the backstop in the protocol and, yes, there will be the extension of the implementation period, but what we have also negotiated in the withdrawal agreement is that alternative arrangements could be in place; the key is that they guarantee no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Jeremy Corbyn
The truth is that the Prime Minister’s idea of taking back control of our money is to hand the EU a blank cheque, and after 2020 no rebate for the UK.
The EU’s trade deal with Canada took seven years to agree, and the deal with Singapore took eight years. The Business Secretary said this week that the transition will have to be extended until the end of 2022. Outside the EU and with no leverage, does the Prime Minister think she is fooling anyone by suggesting a free trade agreement will be finalised by December 2020?
The Prime Minister
The future relationship that we are negotiating will set out the structure and scope of that deal, which we will be ensuring we can negotiate in legal text once we leave the European Union, but I think people will have seen from the right hon. Gentleman’s question to me previously the problem he has with this deal: he has not even read it; he does not know what is in it. He says there is a problem with the deal and he would do it differently, he wants to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement but has not read it, and he wants to oppose any deal no matter how good it is for the UK but he will accept any European Union deal no matter how bad it is for the UK. And then he wants to use the implementation period that he would vote against to renegotiate the treaty that delivers the implementation period. And he has said that another referendum is not an issue for today, but it could be an issue for tomorrow. He does not know how he would vote; he does not know when it would be; he does not even know what the question would be. That is not leadership; that is playing party politics. I am working in the national interest.
Jeremy Corbyn
It is the right hon. Lady’s Government who have got us into this shambles. [Interruption.] And she knows full well that the new European Parliament—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Nobody in this Chamber will be shouted down. We have often heard it said with high authority from the respective Front Benches that that would be bad behaviour. It is happening now. Stop it, because it will not work.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister knows full well that with a new European Parliament in place next summer and a new European Commission at the same time, there will be less than a year for the negotiations on a future trade agreement and for her to achieve what she claims she can.
In February, the Prime Minister said that creating a customs and regulatory border down the Irish sea is something that
“no UK Prime Minister could ever agree to”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 823.]
Can the Prime Minister explain why the backstop agreement would create exactly that border?
The Prime Minister
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it would not create exactly that. From February until the last few weeks, the European Union said that the only answer was a Northern Ireland-only customs territory in relation to the guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland. We argued and we resisted. We made it clear that we would not accept the position of the European Union, and a few weeks ago they agreed with our position. They conceded to the United Kingdom, so that there will not be a customs border down the Irish sea. It is becoming even clearer that the right hon. Gentleman does not actually know what is in the withdrawal agreement, the protocol or the outline political declaration. Never mind a second referendum; he has not got a first clue.
Jeremy Corbyn
Given the shambles that this Government have got into, it is a good idea that other people are not ruling out all options. There is an entire protocol in the withdrawal agreement setting out regulations that apply only to Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister clearly did not discuss the draft agreement with the DUP, because its Brexit spokesperson said:
“We are clear—we will not be voting for this humiliation”.
This deal is a failure. It fails the Prime Minister’s red lines; it fails Labour’s six tests—[Interruption.] And it failed to impress the new Northern Ireland Minister, who said just hours before he was appointed that “the deal is dead”. Instead of giving confidence to the millions of people who voted both leave and remain, this half-baked deal fails to give any hope that can bring the country together again. Is it not the case that Parliament will rightly reject this bad deal? If the Government cannot negotiate an alternative, they should make way for those who can, and will.
The Prime Minister
The public gave us an instruction to leave the European Union, and we should all be acting to deliver that. All the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is play party politics—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Kinnock, you are a cerebral denizen of the House. Gesticulation and shouting are way beneath your pay grade, man. Calm yourself and develop some sense of repose. I said that the Leader of the Opposition should not be shouted at. The Prime Minister should also not be shouted at. Let us hear her reply.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is playing party politics. He is opposing a deal that he has not read. He is promising a deal that he cannot negotiate. He is telling leave voters one thing and remain voters another. Whatever he might do, I will act in the national interest.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend mentions the issue of paying over money to the European Union. As I have consistently said—and as I hope I indicated in my first answer to the Leader of the Opposition—nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and we remain in negotiations on the future framework. In relation to the £39 billion—which I remind my hon. Friend is significantly less than the £100 billion the European Union was first talking about us needing to pay—this is about the United Kingdom’s legal obligations. I hope that every Member of this House will recognise that the United Kingdom is a country that meets its legal obligations.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I also welcome the anniversary of the Act that gave women the right to be represented in this Parliament—of course, it was a nationalist who was first elected—but we can celebrate success only when women are properly represented in this Parliament.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister met the First Minister of Scotland, who made it clear that there are alternatives to this Government’s Brexit plan. Was the Prime Minister listening?
The Prime Minister
Of course I heard what the First Minster said. The First Minister’s alternative is for the United Kingdom to stay in the single market and the customs union, and that is what we will not do.
Ian Blackford
This is exasperating. At least staying in the single market and the customs union has some support in this place. [Interruption.] [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] When we look at the report from the UN rapporteur this week, we see that up to a quarter—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The leader of the Scottish National party will be heard. I do not think that Members will want to hear the question again and again and again, but let us be absolutely clear that if they shout their heads off, they will have to hear it not once, not twice, but possibly three times.
Ian Blackford
In the week when we heard from the UN rapporteur that up to a quarter of the people of the United Kingdom are living in poverty—something the Department for Work and Pensions also recognises—why does the Prime Minister not recognise the scale of the challenge, which Brexit is only going to make worse? Why does she not realise that she has a responsibility to protect jobs and communities in this country? For once, start to listen, go back to Brussels, and recognise that we all have an interest in this. Let us all work together to make sure that we protect the interests of people in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom: make sure that you go back and negotiate. Let us stay in the single market and the customs union.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman says, “Let us all work together”, but the position that he and his party have would frustrate the vote of the British people in relation to leaving the European Union. He talks about protecting jobs, and that is exactly what the deal we are proposing does. He also talks about listening. Perhaps the SNP should listen to the people of Scotland, who gave a very clear view that Scotland should remain in its most important economic market: the internal market of the United Kingdom.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am sure that all Members on both sides of the House will want to join me in offering our deepest condolences to the families of Georgia Jones and Tommy Cowan after their tragic deaths. As my hon. Friend knows, drugs can devastate lives, ruin families and damage communities. Our comprehensive drugs strategy sets out a balanced approach that brings together the police, the health community and global partners to tackle the illicit drugs trade and protect the most vulnerable in our society, and tough enforcement is a fundamental part of that. We are taking a smarter approach to restricting supply, adapting our approach to reflect changes in criminal activity, using innovative data and technology, and taking co-ordinated partnership action to tackle drugs alongside other criminal activity. The National Crime Agency has a key role in dealing with the terrible aspect of drugs that can cause so much harm to people, but of course there is more that we need to do to prevent harm and tragic deaths, such as those of Georgia and Tommy.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are putting extra money into school funding; he will know that we have changed the national funding formula to make it fairer across the country; and I would hope he welcomes the fact that in the north-west we now see over 895,000 children in good or outstanding schools—an increase of over 175,000 children since 2010. He focuses on the money going into schools; he also needs to look at school outcomes, at the excellent work being done by our teachers and at the children who are now in good or outstanding schools who were not in good or outstanding schools under the last Labour Government.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to welcome my right hon. Friend’s constituent Debbie Pritchard, and I hope she will consider standing for Parliament. We talk about diversity in relation to getting more women into Parliament, but my right hon. Friend is right that we also need to ensure that we have people in this Chamber from a wide variety of backgrounds and with a wide variety of experience, because that is the way to get better decisions made in this Chamber. I am pleased that the Conservative party has been taking action through the bursary scheme and through its work to support disabled people into politics and to encourage people from a wide range of backgrounds and with a wide range of experience to stand for Parliament and represent constituents in this Chamber.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady’s claim in relation to democracy is absolutely ridiculous. This Parliament gave people the right to choose whether to remain in the European Union or to leave the European Union. People exercised that vote, and we saw numbers of people voting that we had not seen before. It was a great exercise in democracy in this country, and I believe it gave this Parliament an instruction. We should ensure that we leave the European Union, as the people voted.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are absolutely steadfast, as is my hon. Friend, in our support for Gibraltar, its people and its economy. We have always been clear that Gibraltar is covered by our exit negotiations. We have been committed to fully involving Gibraltar as we exit the European Union. We are seeking a deal that works for the whole UK family, and that deal must work for Gibraltar, too.
I am pleased that we have agreed a protocol, as my hon. Friend knows, on Gibraltar. That will form part of a wider package of agreements between the UK, Spain and the Government of Gibraltar setting out the parties’ commitment to co-operation. I have been clear that we will not exclude Gibraltar from our negotiations on the future relationship. We want a deal that works for the whole UK family, and that includes Gibraltar.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman says that these pension changes were “snuck out”, but that is not the case. This pension issue has been known of for, I believe, two years—it has been under consideration for two years—so it is not the case that this has been snuck out.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to say that we want to negotiate a trading deal with the European Union that is on better terms than WTO terms, and many people across this House want to see the United Kingdom, as we will do when we have left the EU, negotiating trade deals around the rest of world that are on better than WTO terms. That is because we believe that that is best for the UK economy, and if we are negotiating on better than WTO terms with the rest of the world, it makes sense to be negotiating on better than WTO terms with the European Union.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I say to the hon. Lady, as I have said before in this Chamber, that overall per pupil funding is being protected in real terms by this Government. The core schools budget this year, at £42 billion, will be at its highest ever level. We are protecting through the pupil premium this year; we are giving £2.4 billion to support those who need it most. The core schools budget is rising by nearly £2.6 billion across this year and the next. But what we have also done, alongside putting extra money into schools, is introduce a fairer national funding formula, which ensures that we see a fairer distribution of that money across the country.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend affirm to this House today and to the President of the Commission tonight that as we move to honour the result of the referendum, it will remain our firmest intention to retain the closest possible relationships with our European friends and allies, in the very best interests of both?
The Prime Minister
I say to my right hon. Friend that I am happy to give that commitment. I think it is important for us to recognise that although we are leaving the European Union, we are not leaving Europe; we do want to continue to have not just a good trading relationship and close trading partnership with the EU, but that close security and defence partnership that we have had with the European Union and other countries across Europe as well. As he says, this is what makes sense, not just for the UK, but for all those European Union member states as well.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises what is obviously an important issue. Having introduced the Modern Slavery Act, I am pleased to say that between 2015 and 2017 we saw a 52% increase in the number of modern slavery offences prosecuted. There is more for us to do, but we should welcome the change that has already taken place.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about a sex-buyer law. Separate to the review of the Modern Slavery Act, the Home Office has provided funds for research into the nature and prevalence of sex work in England and Wales, and that follows a Home Affairs Committee report on prostitution. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, we believe it is vital to have an evidence base before we consider any changes in this policy area. The research that is taking place will be completed next spring.
Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Can the Prime Minister assure the House today, as she has done on many other occasions, that the UK will be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019—come what may?
The Prime Minister
May I first of all thank my right hon. Friend for the work that she did as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and, indeed, for the work that she had done as a Minister previously? In particular, the Disability Confident scheme, which she championed and continues to champion, has had an impact on the lives of people who are disabled. I can give her the assurance that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises an important point. We want young people to feel secure if they are walking through the streets or gathering in a park with their friends. In looking at the concern that has been expressed about crime—in particular, I recognise the concern that has been expressed about knife crime and levels of knife crime—we need to tackle the issue in a number of different ways across the board. It is about ensuring that we have the right powers for the police and that we have the right system in the criminal justice system, but it is also about providing education for young people about the risks of carrying knives and about providing alternatives to those young people who are tempted to join gangs, because a lot of the crime that we see is related to gang activity. This is something that has to be addressed across the board, and I recognise the importance of doing that to ensure that young people have the security, safety and confidence that they need.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I and other colleagues have read the draft withdrawal agreement and the many briefings. It is clear to me that the Prime Minister and her Cabinet have laudably tried to reconcile the demand for continuity of market access today with freedom to diverge tomorrow. Is not the truth of the backstop as drafted that if—and as—we were to exercise our regulatory freedom, whether in agri-food or data protection, we would allow the EU to harden the border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Can the Prime Minister reassure me, and seek reassurance in Brussels today, that the draft does not contain a trap, whereby if we dare to diverge, we will undermine our Union?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend will know, and as I set out earlier, if it is necessary to have an interim arrangement to provide the guarantee in relation to the border of Northern Ireland, there are a number of ways in which that can be achieved—the backstop, as identified in the protocol, the extension of the implementation period, or alternative arrangements—and work is being done on them.
The backstop is intended to be a temporary arrangement, and for that limited period of time. If my hon. Friend just casts his mind to a practical thought about what could happen, if we were in the situation where the backstop had to be in place for a matter of months, for example, it would be right for the United Kingdom to give the commitment that we would not be looking to diverge from regulations during that period and that we would ensure that we kept that free access for the goods from Northern Ireland coming into Great Britain, as we have committed in the withdrawal agreement—in the text that is set out—and as we had committed previously. That will of course be a decision for us, here. What is important is that we have a means of ensuring that the backstop remains temporary. The best means of doing that is what we are doing at the moment: negotiating the future relationship, which will ensure that the backstop, if it is ever used, remains temporary, and preferably is never used at all.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady will know that we made changes to universal credit to ensure that people are able to access 100% of their payments at the earliest possible stage if that is what is necessary. She raises the issue of poverty. Let me just give her a few figures. There are 1 million fewer people in absolute poverty today—a record low; 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty—a record low; and 637,000 fewer children living in workless households—a record low. That is due to the action of this Government and the impact of universal credit.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Durham University PhD student Matthew Hedges was arrested when he was leaving the UAE, having completed his research into the impact of the Arab spring on the UAE’s foreign policy. He has now been sentenced to life imprisonment for spying for the United Kingdom. A number of us will note the irony of a former MI6 officer who works in the outer office of the de facto ruler of the UAE who has organised many of the excellent visits from this House to the UAE. The action is wholly inconsistent with the behaviour of a nation with which we have a mutual defence accord. Will the Prime Minister please give this her urgent attention? If he is not released, I do not see why we should be committed to its defence.
The Prime Minister
We are, of course, as is my hon. Friend, deeply disappointed and concerned at today’s verdict, and I realise how difficult and distressing this is both for Matthew Hedges and for his family. We are raising the matter with the Emirates authorities at the highest level. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is urgently seeking a call with the Foreign Minister, Abdullah bin Zayed. During his visit to the UAE on 12 November, he raised the issue with both Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed and the Foreign Minister. I can assure my hon. Friend and other Members that the Foreign Office will remain in close contact with Matthew, his family and his lawyer. We will continue to do all we can to support them as they consider the next steps, and we will continue to press this matter at the highest level with the Emirates.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I first send my deepest condolences to Claire Throssell, the hon. Lady’s constituent, and pay tribute to the fantastic work that she does as an ambassador for Women’s Aid. We are committed to transforming the response to domestic violence. The consultation that took place in the spring received more than 3,200 responses, which shows the degree of concern that people have over this issue of domestic violence and the recognition of the need to look carefully at the legislation on this. I understand that the Home Office will be publishing a response to the consultation together with the draft Domestic Abuse Bill later this Session.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
All the evidence shows that diversity delivers better decision making, yet, over the past 100 years in this place, 4,503 men have been elected and just 491 women. I am proud that two of those Conservative women became Prime Minister, but can my right hon. Friend share with me what she feels that Parliament, as well as the political parties, can do to help to encourage more of the women who are with us here today as part of the Ask Her To Stand campaign actually to go forward and stand for election and join us on these Green Benches?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for championing this important cause. She is absolutely right that greater diversity in this place means that we get better decisions; that is the same for Parliament as it is for a business or any organisation. We should send a very clear message from everybody across this House about the significance of the work of an individual Member of Parliament and the change they can make for their community. Being a Member of Parliament is one of the best jobs in the world. It is an opportunity to make a real difference to people’s lives, to be a real voice for those whose voice otherwise would not be heard and to take decisions that will lead our country forward and provide a better future for people’s children and grandchildren. It is a great job and I encourage all the women who are here today and thinking of standing to stand for Parliament, get elected and make a difference.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
In the December joint report agreed between the European Union and the United Kingdom, it was agreed that Northern Ireland would have the final say on whether it diverged from the UK single market and was subjected to single market European rules with no say. Why has the Prime Minister deleted all reference to that in the withdrawal agreement? Did she push the delete button?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the December joint report. The issue of what the processes in the United Kingdom would be when it comes to looking at the regulations is a matter for the United Kingdom to determine; it is for us to determine both our parliamentary decisions on that and the Stormont lock that was expressed in the December joint report. As the right hon. Gentleman will also know, the lock in the December joint report referred to a decision being taken by the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly, which sadly are not in place today.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
On Monday, at an event for cystic fibrosis sufferers organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), I heard something that I never want to hear again: a young woman in her 30s actively researching funeral plans because she has cystic fibrosis and knows there is no cure. My question is about the conversation between the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NHS England and Vertex, which has been at an impasse for almost three years now, about access to Orkambi for patients who need it. Pharmaceutical companies are of course entitled to make profit, and research and development is expensive and lengthy, but now that we have reached the point at which the Health and Social Care Committee is having to ask for transparency on the finances to try to break the impasse, we know we have to do something differently. Looking at the huge global forward profits for Vertex, will the Prime Minister personally work with the Health Secretary to break this impasse and get Orkambi to those patients who are desperate to relieve their cystic fibrosis symptoms?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend’s question is an important one, which has been raised in the House before. I recognise the concern about the length of time it has taken to work on this issue. The Department of Health and Social Care is working with NICE and the NHS. I believe that they have made the single biggest drug offer in the history of the NHS to Vertex, the pharma company; and Vertex needs to work with NICE to get this approved. I will ensure that the concern expressed by my hon. Friend and that I know exists in relation to this matter is fully made clear to the Department of Health and Social Care in the work that it is doing with NICE, the NHS and the pharma company order to ensure that the result is of benefit to the patients who are looking desperately for this drug.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Article 171 of the withdrawal agreement says that in the event of deadlock in the arbitration panel on a dispute on any aspect of the treaty, the chair, who has the decisive vote, will be chosen “by lot”. Now, I know the Government are close to the gambling industry, but is it not rather reckless to leave crucial decisions of national importance under the withdrawal agreement to the toss of a coin?
The Prime Minister
We have put in place arbitration arrangements that mirror arbitration arrangements that exist in other international treaties. The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the withdrawal agreement also says that five individuals—I think that is the number given—will be identified as suitable to be chairman of the panel.
Points of Order
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Yes, I will hear the hon. Gentleman when the House has composed itself. In the frankly extraordinary circumstance that there are right hon. and hon. Members who do not wish to hear his point of order, I think it is seemly to wait until their speedy and quiet exit has taken place and the rest of us can listen to his mellifluous tones.
Chris Elmore
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on a recent report from the Procedure Committee regarding speaking limits on speeches in the Chamber and an older report on a review of the Standing Orders of the House. I was concerned when I saw various Standing Orders that make reference to the influence of the Chair in controlling proceedings and, of course, the conduct of Members. Oddly and archaically, in my view, these Standing Orders make reference only to members of the House being male. For example, page 43 of Standing Orders, on Nos. 42 and 42A on irrelevance or repetition—something that I know Members of the House never take part in, Mr Speaker—states:
“The Speaker, or the chair, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.”
It further states:
“The Speaker, or the chair, may direct any Member who breaches the terms of the sub judice resolution of the House to resume his seat.”
On further inquiry, I found that there are numerous Standing Orders that make reference to “him” or “his” in relation to Members of the House, and no Standing Order I have read makes reference to women holding seats in the House. In the Procedure Committee’s report of three years ago, “Revision of Standing Orders”, a recommendation was made for
“amendments for gender-neutral language, such as “he or she” for “he”, when the pronoun does not refer to a holder of a specific office, or drafting to avoid the need to use a gendered pronoun.”
My understanding is that this recommendation has never been implemented, despite being several years old.
In all sincerity, Mr Speaker, I am sure you would agree that if we are to be a truly progressive Parliament, especially on the day on which 100 years ago—as referenced earlier by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—women were rightly allowed to stand for Parliament, and in the year of universal suffrage, something as basic as our Standing Orders should reflect the fact that women are allowed to serve and sit in this House.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter as a point of order. Moreover, I think it fair to say, and I doubt anybody will demur as I do so, that no one could accuse him of excluding from his point of order any matter that he thought might in any way, at any time and to any degree be judged to be material. I have no comment to make on his observations about the Procedure Committee’s deliberations on time limits. Moreover, what he said on other matters—for example, tedious repetition—was unexceptionable, and there is no need for me to add to it.
However, on the main point that I think the hon. Gentleman wished to register with the House, let me say that I fully share his concern about this matter. Many right hon. and hon. Members, and observers outside the House, will agree with him that it is frankly archaic that our Standing Orders use gendered pronouns. It is deeply unsatisfactory that the revisions to the Standing Orders proposed by the Clerk and recommended by the Procedure Committee in March 2015 have still not been brought to the House for decision. I would very much like to expedite these changes, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, this does not lie in my hands. I would encourage him to pursue the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions, and perhaps also to urge his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench to press, through the usual channels, for action. Meanwhile, I hope that his concern, which I have reiterated I share, has been noted by those on the Treasury Bench.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Oh, does the hon. Gentleman really feel that the House needs to hear him at this time?
Rehman Chishti
Thank you, Mr Speaker. One hundred and twenty-five Members of Parliament from across the House, including Lords Spiritual, have written to the Prime Minister asking the Government to do the right thing in the Asia Bibi case, where somebody’s life is in grave danger and they are being persecuted for their faith. My question to you, Mr Speaker, is this: how long should those Members of Parliament have to wait to hear from the Prime Minister in a case of such importance where we, the United Kingdom, should offer asylum and act quickly, because somebody’s life is in grave danger?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. What he did not say was when he wrote the letter. In my experience, the Prime Minister is as courteous as anybody in this House. She receives a very large volume of correspondence, as other very senior Members do, and it is her usual practice to respond timeously, but I do not know when the letter was written. All I would say is that the matter is clearly of the highest importance, and I hope that by the ruse of a point of order the hon. Gentleman has effectively expedited the matter. If he has not succeeded in doing so, I have a feeling that we will be hearing from him again ere long. I thank him: it was indeed an important matter, and I appreciate him raising it. If there are no further points of order—if the appetite has now been satisfied—we come to the urgent question.
Yemen
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK’s effort to secure a new UN Security Council resolution on Yemen.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising this vital issue. The conflict in Yemen has escalated to become one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world. Today, 8 million people—nearly a third of the population—depend on United Nations food aid. Starvation and disease have taken hold across the country. More than 420,000 children have been treated for malnutrition and 1.2 million people have suffered from a cholera epidemic. In total, about 22 million people across Yemen—nearly 80% of the population—are in need of help. Yet the bare statistics cannot convey the enormity of this tragedy. What we are witnessing is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe, inflicted by a conflict that has raged for too long.
Britain is one of the biggest donors of emergency aid, providing £170 million of help to Yemen this year, which brings our total support to £570 million since 2015. But the only solution is for all the parties to set aside their arms, cease missile and air attacks on populated areas and pursue a peaceful political settlement. Last week, I conveyed this message to the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which lead the coalition fighting to restore Yemen’s legitimate Government, when I visited both countries. On Monday, I said the same in Tehran to the Foreign Minister of Iran, which backs the Houthi rebels.
On the same day, I instructed our mission at the United Nations to circulate a draft resolution to the Security Council urging a “durable cessation of hostilities” throughout Hodeidah province and calling on the parties to
“cease all attacks on densely populated civilian areas across Yemen”.
This draft resolution also requires the unhindered flow of food and medicine, and all other forms of aid, “across the country”. The aim of this UK-sponsored resolution is to relieve the immediate humanitarian crisis and maximise the chances of achieving a political settlement. Martin Griffiths, the UN envoy, is planning to gather all the parties for peace talks in Sweden in the next few weeks.
Amid this tragedy, the House will have noticed some encouraging signs. Last week, Saudi Arabia and the UAE paused their operation in Hodeidah, although there was a further outbreak of fighting yesterday. The Houthi rebels have publicly promised to cease their missile attacks on Saudi Arabia. Martin Griffiths is meeting all parties as he prepares the ground for the talks in Sweden.
Britain holds a unique position as the pen holder for Yemen in the Security Council, a leading humanitarian donor and a country with significant influence in the region, so we will make every effort, and use all the diplomatic assets at our command, to support the UN envoy as he seeks to resolve a crisis that has inflicted such terrible suffering.
Emily Thornberry
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. It is only right that all of us from across the House who have been urging the Government for more than two years to table a ceasefire resolution on Yemen have a chance to discuss the draft that will finally go before the UN tomorrow.
I applaud the Foreign Secretary for the fresh impetus that he has brought to the process, just as he has in recent days to the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. There have been other factors at play: the appalling bus bombings in August; the famine faced by 14 million Yemeni citizens; the murder of Jamal Khashoggi; the rising tide of public anger at the war; and the news today that at least 85,000 children have died of hunger and disease since the war began. Unlike his predecessor, this Foreign Secretary has not buried his head in the sand. He has listened to the House, and he deserves credit for that.
Even if we have had to wait for a long time—and we have—there is a great deal to welcome in this draft resolution. We all support its key demands: an immediate cessation of hostilities around Hodeidah; urgent and unhindered access for humanitarian relief; all targeting of civilians to stop; compliance by all sides with international humanitarian law; and full co-operation with the UN’s peace envoy. I will write to the Foreign Secretary later with a number of detailed questions about the resolution and ensure that that letter is available to colleagues, but in the brief time I have, I want to ask him three questions.
First, the five key demands that I mentioned were all included in the Government’s draft resolution circulated in October 2016, which frankly gives the lie to every excuse that the House was ever offered about why that draft was dropped. Can the Foreign Secretary explain why we have had two years of inaction, and tell us what has changed and why it has taken so long?
Secondly—this was also a failing of the 2016 draft—can the Foreign Secretary tell us why the latest resolution fails to spell out what compliance with the resolution will be monitored and by whom, and what sanctions will apply to any party that breaches its terms, whether in terms of the ceasefire or the restriction of humanitarian aid?
Finally, and this is my most important point, there is one major change between the new draft resolution and the draft in 2016. While the new resolution refers to violations of international law in Yemen, it proposes no investigation of those crimes, let alone the independent and transparent investigations that we need if all those who are responsible are to be held to account. Can the Foreign Secretary explain that omission? I want to ask him a simple yes-or-no question: was a demand for an independent, transparent investigation into all alleged war crimes in Yemen and full accountability for those responsible, which is not included in the current draft, in the draft that he showed to Crown Prince bin Salman when they met last week in Riyadh?
Mr Hunt
First, I thank the right hon. Lady for the tone of her comments. She is right that this is a humanitarian catastrophe, and what matters in this situation is finding a way forward. I will try hard to answer her questions.
The important thing about the resolution we are proposing is not that this is the end of the story in terms of international efforts to broker a ceasefire, but that it is a step on the road. We want a ceasefire, and we want a ceasefire that will hold. We know that the risk if we go for too much too early with such resolutions is that they end up getting ignored. This is a carefully brokered form of words that is designed to get a consensus from both sides that will allow talks to start before the end of this month in Stockholm—that is the objective of the resolution—and if those talks are successful, we will be able to have a much stronger resolution following them.
Mr Hunt
Absolutely, and I will come on to the investigation issue as well, but it is very important at this stage that we have a resolution first that passes and secondly that puts in place things that build confidence on both sides.
The right hon. Lady asks why the original draft was not pursued. She has been following this issue closely for longer than I have, but my assessment when I arrived in this post was that, tragically, both sides have believed over that period that a military solution is possible, and that is why there has been an unwillingness, at huge cost to the people of Yemen.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the Save the Children report published today, which I agree is horrific. I found out last week that in the last week for which we have data, 14,000 people caught cholera in Yemen. This situation is escalating out of control. First, the immediate priority in the resolution is to allow the flow of humanitarian aid. Secondly, we need a cessation of hostilities, which will allow trust to be built up, and, thirdly, we need confidence-building measures, which involves allowing, for example, the payment of salaries of civil servants in Yemen and getting foreign currency into the economy.
In terms of compliance, when this resolution goes through, as I hope it will, the UN will monitor compliance—
Mr Hunt
I am just answering the right hon. Lady’s question. She has asked what will happen about compliance. I have said that the UN will monitor compliance, and if there is not compliance, it is up to the UN to decide what further measures are taken. I point out to her that we are talking about a very short period. We are trying to get the participants to Stockholm on around 28 November. That is the purpose of doing this—to get people talking so that we can build trust. The one piece of optimism in this incredibly tragic story is the fact that the outline political settlement is actually fairly clear and there is broad agreement on all sides. It is really about building the trust to get there.
I absolutely agree that there has to be a full investigation of war crimes and full accountability.
Mr Hunt
All these things will happen in the context of a political settlement that stops the fighting, stops people starving, and allows people to get the vital medicines they need.
In that context, I went to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran, and in all cases, I had tough messages for the people I was speaking to about the fact that this situation has to change. That is what I am doing. That means getting compromises on all sides to reach agreement. That is what we are doing, and that is the role of this country. We have to be careful not to overestimate our influence, but we should not underestimate it either. We have a vital role, which is to pursue peace, and that is what we are going to do.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
First, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s efforts in the region, most notably in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and, recently, Iran. We are watching the degradation and destruction of a wonderful country and a huge humanitarian tragedy is occurring. I want to praise the work of our UN staff, and particularly the permanent representative, Karen Pierce, for what she has done to bring this resolution forward. May I urge my right hon. Friend to redouble his efforts, although it seems hard to imagine that he could, to get to the talks to Stockholm, to end this tragedy and to persuade our friends that they are making a very serious mistake?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend speaks wisely. Karen Pierce has done a fantastic job at the United Nations, as have our ambassadors on the ground. He is right; the immediate priority is to get these talks to start. We had a false start with the talks that we hoped would happen in Geneva in August. I think there are signs now that both sides are more willing to talk and to engage in discussions.
The message could not be clearer to the participants on all sides. My hon. Friend is right: our allies, the Saudis and Emiratis, have had to receive hard messages from us in the last few days, but the Houthis have also had to receive tough messages. That was why I went to Iran this week, because we must not miss this opportunity.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his recognition of the humanitarian cost and for the tone that he brings to this. The Save the Children report said that 85,000 children under five have starved to death as a direct result of the war in Yemen, with half of the population at risk of famine. I associate myself with the remarks of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), about the work of UK officials, not least the ambassador, at the UN.
The Foreign Secretary talked about UK aid, and he is right—we recognise the importance of that—but UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia far outstrip our aid. In fact, last year—2017—there was an increase on 2016 in the level of arms sold to Saudi Arabia. There is recognition across the House that this conflict is having an appalling humanitarian cost, and there has been agreement for quite some time that there is no military solution to this conflict. As such, is it not time to turn off the taps of arms sales to Saudi Arabia right now?
Mr Hunt
I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman asks that question, but may I gently say to him that if we did as he is proposing, he needs to ask how that would help people who are starving in Yemen today? Their situation is absolutely desperate, but far from helping them, there would have been no visit by the UK Foreign Secretary to Saudi Arabia last week, no opportunity to have a frank and sometimes difficult conversation with the Crown Prince, no trip to Tehran—because Iran’s reason for talking to us is that we have a relationship with the Saudis—and no support across the table for a Security Council resolution. British influence, far from being able to bring both sides together, would reduce to zero. That is why the right thing for us to do on arms sales is to follow the incredibly strict arms control regime introduced by a Labour Government in 2000—one of the strictest in the world—which has objective measures to make sure that we do not export arms to places where there is a high risk of violations of international humanitarian law.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The urgently needed change of policy, which people across this House have been calling for for more than two years now, on Yemen is greatly to be welcomed, and it coincides with the arrival of the new Foreign Secretary at the Foreign Office. Does he understand that the condemnation of violence and of the horrendous suffering in Yemen must be even-handed if Martin Griffiths and his colleagues are to succeed in negotiating a cessation of warfare and meaningful talks? I say to the Foreign Secretary, with the deepest possible sadness, that it comes to something when Britain lags behind the moral curve set by the Trump White House.
Mr Hunt
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments and his expertise, but I do not agree with his last comment at all. The UK has actually been in the forefront of trying to broker a solution. He is absolutely right that there will be a solution to this only if there is an even-handed approach to the problems. That is exactly the approach that Martin Griffiths is taking, and that is why we are supporting his work. At every stage of what we do, we are listening very carefully to what he says because he has dialogue not only with the Saudis and the Emiratis, but also with the Houthis.
The difficulty, in terms of the historical situation, is that we all have to remember that this really started on 21 September 2014, when the Houthis, who represent less than 25% of the population of Yemen, ejected the legitimate Government of Yemen. That was the start of this conflict. We now need to get all sides together and of course listen to all legitimate concerns, but we do have to remember the historical context.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The House appreciates the efforts that the Foreign Secretary is making in this matter, but may I put this question to him? He referred to the Houthis’ announcement that they would cease missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia, but it is not entirely clear that Saudi Arabia has yet given up the idea that it might achieve a military victory, and it is reported that the Saudis reacted very badly to the draft resolution that the Government have put forward.
I want to come to the question of the two-week deadline for the lifting of all barriers to aid coming through Hodeidah. The truth about the Yemen conflict is that, in the past, deadlines have come and deadlines have gone, and people have died. The question I want to ask the Foreign Secretary, who said this would be a matter for the UN Security Council, is: what kind of consequence does he think it would be right for us, as a world, to make it clear to the Saudis and the Houthis will follow if they fail now to accept what we hope will be a United Nations resolution telling them, “In two weeks, it’s got to stop.”?
Mr Hunt
The right hon. Gentleman has enormous experience, and I think he speaks with enormous wisdom. The first point I would make about what he says is that it is because of those deadlines that have come and gone, and the pledges that have been broken during the tragic three years of this conflict, that we are being very careful in the wording that we put forward now, to try to get a wording that could stick and that could have the support of all sides.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there will be very serious consequences if we do not see progress. He will understand if I do not spell out to the House what those consequences are. All I can say is that I do not believe that our allies are in any doubt of the extremely high priority that both we and the Americans attach to this, and I think that is very significant.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I want to thank the Foreign Secretary for coming here today and providing such clarity not just about the situation, but about the United Kingdom Government’s commitment to a fair focus in coming to the right outcomes through building trust and confidence. Can he say more, though? We are a great humanitarian leader when it comes to the Yemen crisis. People are dying every day and have been for many years now. How are we mobilising other allies to provide support in the wider context, but also absolutely to break the gridlock on humanitarian aid and assistance?
Mr Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for her contribution, and I would of course expect her to speak with great knowledge about the humanitarian side of this, given her former role in government. She is absolutely right: what she has said is a priority for us. That is why one of the things that is in the draft resolution is that we should raise the funding necessary to meet the challenge.
My right hon. Friend championed our budget. We are on some measures the third-largest donor to Yemen. Outside the region, we are certainly the second-largest donor to Yemen after the United States—£170 million in the past year—but we cannot do this alone. So one of the things that we are absolutely seeking to unlock is the support from other countries that we desperately need.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I am certain that the Foreign Secretary will do his utmost to bring this awful situation to a conclusion—it cannot go on. May I ask him in particular about his visit to Iran and his efforts to get Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe freed? How hopeful is he that some progress will be made in this situation, where a woman who is innocent is still kept in jail?
Mr Hunt
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. I did talk a lot about what was happening in Yemen when I was in Iran, but she is absolutely right to say that I spent a long time on the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I have to answer truthfully: I did not detect any signs of an immediate change in Iran’s position. I want to say very plainly that this is an innocent woman, and she has been separated from her daughter for more than half her daughter’s life. It is an appalling situation, and Iran cannot but expect, if it continues to detain people to create diplomatic leverage—sadly, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is not the only person in this situation, and Britain is not the only country affected—that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to behave this way. We will stop at nothing to make sure that justice is done and that this brave lady is released.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Effective UN action is so often prevented by the deployment of a protected veto on behalf of one or other of the combatants. That will not happen in the case of Yemen, will it?
Mr Hunt
We have to be very clear that that must not happen and should not happen. That is another reason to be very careful with the wording that we are putting forward. What we actually want is a ceasefire, backed up by a UN Security Council resolution that does pass and is respected on the ground. I do not think we can get to that point in the next couple of weeks, but we want to make a step in that direction.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for asking the urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it; otherwise, we would not be having this discussion. I also thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Paris recently with nine other hon. Members for the first conference of parliamentarians. It is not just our House that is outraged; people in the French Assembly and elsewhere are concerned. My right hon. Friend is right that there has been a change of tone at the top of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, although not in the middle ranks. The Minister for the Middle East has always been a friend of Yemen and we should not forget his contribution.
I say to the Foreign Secretary that fine words are not enough, although he has given them today. If he holds the pens, he has to use them—not just look at them. That means, first, convening a meeting of the Quint—getting together the Foreign Ministers of the countries involved. He can do that; his predecessor was reluctant to do so. Secondly, he must guarantee the Houthis’ safe passage to Sweden. One reason they did not come to Geneva was that they thought they would not get to Sweden. Thirdly, he must remember that every single day more Yemenis die, so we cannot wait even two weeks; we have to do this now. With every single hour of delay, another Yemeni dies. Five Yemeni children die every single day. So, we cannot wait to be nice to people; we need to get on and table the resolution.
Mr Hunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and welcome the urgency with which he is encouraging the Government to act, because he is absolutely right. He is also right that this is not about words. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has done an extraordinary job in terms of the patient diplomacy that he has shown over many years. At the United Nations General Assembly in New York, I had a meeting with the Foreign Ministers who are directly involved. I have been pressing them continually, since even before that meeting. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the safe passage of humanitarian aid is essential, but what has been missing up till now is a willingness on all sides to properly engage in talks. I think we have a change now. There is still a long journey ahead, but this is the moment and we have to grasp it.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
I warmly welcome the draft resolution and the terrific diplomatic energy that the Foreign Secretary is putting into the issue. It is indeed good news that the Houthi militia have announced that they will end ballistic missile strikes, but what other reasons does he have for believing that the Iran-backed Houthi militia will come to the negotiating table in good faith?
Mr Hunt
The real issue is a total lack of trust on both sides. The Houthis said that their principal condition for attending the talks was the safe passage of 50 wounded Houthis to Oman for medical treatment. On my visit to Saudi Arabia, it was publicly confirmed that that will happen. I hope they understand that their principal condition has been met; it is important now that they do not add new conditions. Likewise, the Saudis need to recognise that the missiles have stopped coming into Saudi Arabia, and they must not add new conditions at this stage. Then people need to sit down and talk.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I first welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about the situation faced by Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as I am sure all hon. Members do. I also recognise his commitment to a ceasefire that will hold, but can he assure us that the language used will place some accountability on all parties, that there will be independent arbitration and investigation and that there will be meaningful involvement for women, youth and civil society in the peace process?
Mr Hunt
I reassure the hon. Lady that what she is talking about is exactly what Martin Griffiths, the special envoy, envisages. In the end, if we are to have a durable political solution, there must be trust, accountability for what has happened and fair processes in place to make that happen.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary knows that Her Majesty’s armed forces always act with the highest professionalism and integrity, but how confident is he that when alleged war crimes—breaches of the laws of war, of international humanitarian law and of international law—are investigated in the future, the technical assistance given to the Saudi regime by Her Majesty’s armed forces will not drag them into accusations of complicity in such actions?
Mr Hunt
In this specific case, I reassure my hon. Friend that our armed forces are not involved at an operational level in the activities of the Saudi coalition to the extent that he suggests. Because of our commercial relationship with Saudi Arabia, however, we are very actively monitoring its compliance with international humanitarian law. We have a lot of contact with the Saudis about that and we raise regular concerns when we think things are going wrong.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State are well aware of my long-standing concerns about our policy on Yemen, particularly arms sales, but I want to thank the Foreign Secretary for the personal effort he has put in—by contrast to his predecessor—and to thank the Minister of State for his regular and ongoing conversations. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for the conference he organised in Paris, which I also attended. He gave a clear message to the Houthis and others that they must attend the talks and take part in the process.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the best things that the coalition could do is to end the bombardment of Hodeidah—there have been indiscriminate attacks in the last few days—as that would provide a good precondition for the talks in Stockholm? Does he also agree that we need to address the issue of safe transport for the Houthi delegation? They made their concerns clear to us: can he assure me that we will do all that we can to ensure that they do not have any excuses not to attend those talks in Sweden?
Mr Hunt
I will always listen to the hon. Gentleman, who is a former humanitarian worker. He is right that safe transport to the talks in Sweden, and the ability to get back to Yemen afterwards, is a big concern of the Houthis. I am confident that we are pretty much there in terms of resolving the issue. He is right to say that the situation is urgent, and we need to listen carefully to Houthi concerns if we are to build up trust on their side to allow them to engage in a way they did not feel able to do in August.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
How confident is the Foreign Secretary that the tough messages he has taken to the region are being listened to, especially in Tehran, given the strongly destabilising effect Iran has in this conflict? While the resolution is incredibly welcome, if it is not complied with, it will not amount to much more than words on a piece of paper that will not save any lives.
Mr Hunt
I hope that it is a little bit more than that. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, but the resolution talks about a cessation of hostilities. It is a step short of a ceasefire, but it is something that we hope might happen. To fully answer the previous question and my hon. Friend’s question together, the cessation of the bombing of the civilian areas of Hodeidah is an important part of the equation to build up trust. That can lead to some progress, but we have been disappointed before.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Coming from the city of Birmingham, I can tell the Foreign Secretary that it was particularly chilling to read the report from Save the Children that said that 85,000 children under five have died in the past three years—the equivalent of the entire under-five population of Birmingham. While it is obviously critical to lift the siege on Hodeidah to make sure that much needed humanitarian supplies, including food, get in, is he also aware of the warning from the director of the World Food Programme that even those supplies that get in are often not able to reach those who need them, because food prices have doubled at the same time as incomes have fallen? What can be done to ensure that food gets to the people who need it rather than being stopped by profiteers?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is right. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke to David Beasley at the weekend about these issues. In terms of the supply of food, we have been playing our part. On World Food Day, we announced an extra £96.5 million which will help to feed 2.2 million children and to treat 70,000 children in need of medical help. Corruption and similar issues are a big concern, but are made far worse if bombing is actually going on at the time. The first thing that we need to do is to stop the military action and allow some of the normal civilian methods of stopping corruption to be put in place.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend’s efforts to resolve this humanitarian disaster. What further efforts could he make to undermine Iran’s malign influence in Yemen and right across the middle east?
Mr Hunt
This is something I discussed at length with my Iranian counterpart on Monday. This is of course a big issue in terms of the wider issues of the huge proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. I pointed out that as a large regional power, everyone understands Iran is going to expect to have influence in its region. It is the military influence that is concerning people, whether in Yemen, with Hezbollah, in Syria or in Iraq. Until we can find a resolution to that, I do not think we are going to solve the bigger problem.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s direction of travel on Yemen, but the Yemen Data Project recorded 106 air raids in October. Some 60% of them hit civilian infrastructure, including a hospital, a food storage facility, water and electricity sites and civilian transports. How does he expect the Saudis to use the weapons he sold them this month?
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
I commend the work of the Foreign Secretary on this issue. An early coalition exit from the conflict in Yemen would not end the civil war. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the coalition has prevented an attack on Hodeidah, and that if it withdrew, the many resistance forces would advance and the conflict would become even more bloody? Does he agree that now is the time for British courage?
Mr Hunt
This is absolutely the time for Britain to use its strength and weight in so far as we have it, but I think my hon. Friend is correctly pointing to the complexity of the situation. The whole conflict started with an appalling injustice: the rebel Government, who represent less than 25% of the population, took over the capital Sana’a and ejected a legitimate Government and a president who had been through an election. That is the heart of this conflict. The concern on the coalition side, which is completely legitimate, is that nothing in the peace process ends up legitimising a wholly illegitimate takeover of power.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I join with others in commending the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team for the fresh impetus with regard to this tragedy, but every single death in Yemen should be shameful for the entire international community. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what reaction he has had to the draft resolution, which countries are not supporting it, why they are not supporting it, and what they require to enable them to support it?
Mr Hunt
What we are trying to build is a consensus. That means we have people on all sides who dislike elements of what we are proposing, but we are saying that everyone needs to compromise at this moment. What we do not want to do is move away from the core of our resolution, which is to build confidence at this stage that will allow the talks to go ahead at the end of this month. That is the priority.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s initiative. I agree with most, but not all, of the draft resolution. I think what is really important is paragraph 4, section (b), where he has recognised that falling household incomes in Yemen since 2009 have been at the core of this problem in the past and will be at the core of this problem in the future. The fighting is a consequence of falling incomes. We have had seven peace talks and they have all collapsed. This morning, the Houthis said that they will not abide by any UN resolution. If the peace talks collapse in Sweden, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, what happens next?
Mr Hunt
The fighting is both the cause and the consequence of falling household incomes. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to that. All I would say is that one of the suggestions in the resolution is to get foreign currency back into Yemen, particularly through the payment of civil servants of the Government of Yemen, so we can start to get some money back into the Yemeni economy. Getting some liquidity into people’s pockets is an absolutely key priority.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I commend, as many others have, the work the Foreign Secretary has put in place. I agree entirely with what he says about not wanting to legitimise the original actions of the Houthis that started the conflict. His draft resolution rightly criticises the Houthis by name, but by the same token the Saudi Arabians and UAE are only mentioned in terms of the positive steps they have taken. Across the House, we have been critical of many of the ways the Saudis have conducted this conflict. Can he say why there is not more in the draft resolution about the areas on which the Saudis should rightly be criticised?
Mr Hunt
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there are plenty of things in the draft resolution that are uncomfortable for the Saudis. In fact, it is not clear at this stage whether they will actually support it. What we have to do is bring both sides to the table. We have to recognise that there was an injustice committed by the Houthis that was the start of this conflict, but we also have to recognise that part of the tragedy has been caused by the repeated failure of the Saudi military to conclude military operations in a short timescale, which is what they have always said they would be able to do.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Given that so many civilians have been killed by bombing from the air by the Saudis, why are we still training Saudi military pilots at RAF Valley?
Mr Hunt
We have a strategic relationship with the Saudis, but we are very, very clear that we are only able to supply them arms and do all the other things that we do with them if we are confident that Saudi Arabia is and will be in compliance with international humanitarian law. We monitor that constantly.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Minister of State is aware of two of my constituency cases: one involving a constituent who is being held in Sana’a; and another involving the daughters of Jackie Morgan, who were kidnapped from Cardiff in 1986 by their father and have been in Yemen ever since. Jackie Morgan’s daughter Safia is a British citizen, as are the grandchildren. Both families feel that the Government have not been doing enough up until now to help them with their cases. I commend the Minister of State for the efforts he has made, but will the Foreign Secretary personally look at these cases, now that there may be a window to do more, to see if he can do more, with his Minister of State, to help these families?
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for championing his constituents’ cases. I want to reassure him that the lack of progress we have been able to make is not through a lack of effort or desire on the part of the FCO; it is simply a function of the fact that we cannot get consular staff into Yemen. Our ambassador is based in Riyadh. I met him when I was there last week. As soon as we are able to offer more assistance, we will.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary talks about the need for robust oversight of humanitarian obligations in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. A report by The Sunday Post revealed that 366 war crimes allegations in Yemen have been tabled, but only 79 investigations have been undertaken by the Saudi-led joint incident assessment team. That is a 21% rate. Does the Secretary of State view that as an acceptable rate, particularly as British munitions may have been involved in those incidents?
Mr Hunt
The entire humanitarian situation in Yemen is totally unacceptable. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Foreign Secretary that there needs to be full investigation of all crimes that have happened. To do that, however, we need a climate that makes that possible. That is why the peace process is so important.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for all his endeavours and for the leadership he has shown so far in his new position. We are very grateful for that. The absence of a peace process in Yemen is worrying. In Northern Ireland, we all know that until peace talks started only then did the fighting stop. There are reports that some 85,000 children in Yemen are dead from malnutrition. Reports in the media this morning—I watched the news before I left my hotel—said that some people were not able to get to where the food was. Will he therefore outline what protocols are in place to ensure that aid is getting to the right places on the ground and to distribution points that people can actually access?
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern. I always listen carefully to him, considering the history of Northern Ireland. The sad truth is that I cannot give him those assurances, because aid is not getting to where it needs to. There are 22 million people in need of humanitarian assistance and only a third of them are getting it at the moment. That is why, as he rightly says, the first step is for the fighting to stop. We need the confidence-building measures to enable that to happen.
Gosport Independent Panel
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
In June this year, the Gosport Independent Panel published its report into what happened at Gosport War Memorial Hospital between 1987 and 2001. It found that 456 patients died sooner than they would have done after being given powerful opioid painkillers. As many as 200 other people may have had their lives shortened, but this could not be proved because medical records were missing.
The findings in the Gosport report are truly shocking, and we must not forget that every one of those people was a son or daughter, a mother or father, a sister or brother. I reiterate the profound and unambiguous apology on behalf of the Government and the NHS for the hurt and anguish that the families who lost loved ones have endured. These were not just preventable deaths, but deaths directly caused by the actions of others. The report is a deeply troubling account of people dying at the hands of those who were trusted to care for them. I pay tribute to the courage of the victims’ families and their local MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), in their work for and commitment to the truth. Without their persistence, the catalogue of failures may never have come to light.
Along with the Prime Minister, I have met Bishop James Jones, who chaired the panel. He made it absolutely clear that what happened at Gosport continues to have an impact and places a terrible burden on relatives to this day. The failures were made worse because whistleblowers were not listened to, investigations fell short and lessons failed to be learnt. We must all learn the right lessons from the panel’s report and apply them across the entire system.
As Bishop Jones writes in the report, relatives felt betrayed by those in authority and were made to feel like “troublemakers” for asking legitimate questions. The report states that
“when relatives complained about the safety of patients…they were consistently let down by those in authority—both individuals and institutions. These included the senior management of the hospital, healthcare organisations, Hampshire Constabulary, local politicians, the coronial system, the Crown Prosecution Service, the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council.”
The panel heard how nurses raised concerns as far back as 1988, but were ignored and sidelined. More than 100 families raised concerns over more than two decades, but they were ignored and patronised. Frail, elderly people were seen as problems to be managed, rather than patients to be helped. Perhaps the most harrowing part of the report is when it makes clear that if action had been taken when problems were first raised, hundreds fewer would have died at Gosport. People want to see that justice is done, policies are changed and that we learn the right lessons across the NHS. I will take each of those in turn.
First, on justice, between 1998 and 2010, Hampshire constabulary conducted three separate investigations. None of the investigations led to a prosecution. The panel criticised the police for their failings in the investigations and their failure to get to the truth. Families said that they felt police had not taken their concerns seriously enough or investigated fully. Because of Hampshire police’s failures, a different police force has been brought in. A new, external police team is now independently assessing the evidence and will decide whether to launch a full investigation. They must be allowed to complete that process and follow the evidence, so that justice is done. Much has improved in the NHS since the period covered by the panel’s report, but we cannot afford to be complacent. What happened at Gosport is both a warning and a challenge.
Let me turn to the reforms that have been made and the reforms that we plan to make. The Care Quality Commission has been established as an independent body that inspects all hospitals, GP surgeries and care homes to detect failings and identify what needs to be improved. We have set up the National Guardian’s Office to ensure that staff concerns are heard and addressed. Every NHS trust in England now has someone in place whom whistleblowers can speak to in confidence and without fear of being penalised. We have established NHS Improvement—a separate, dedicated organisation—to respond to failings and put things right, and the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch now investigates safety breaches and uses them to learn lessons and spread best practice throughout the NHS.
Those are the reforms that the Government have already made, but we must go further, so motivated by this report we will bring forward new legislation that will compel NHS trusts to report annually on how concerns raised by staff have been addressed; and, we are working with our colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to see how we can strengthen protections for NHS whistleblowers, including changing the law and other options.
Next is the question of drug prescription. Central to the deaths at Gosport was the prescribing, dispensing and monitoring of controlled drugs. Since the period covered by the report, there have been significant changes in the way that controlled drugs are used and managed and these syringe drivers are no longer in use in the NHS. However, in the light of the panel’s findings, we are further reviewing how we can improve safety.
Further, from April next year, medical examiners will be introduced across England to ensure that every death is scrutinised by either a coroner or a medical examiner. Medical examiners are people bereaved families can talk to about their concerns to ensure that investigations take place when necessary, to help to detect and deter criminal activity and to promote good practice. The new system will be overseen by a new independent national medical examiner and training will take place to ensure a consistency of approach and a record of scrutiny.
The reforms that we have made since Gosport mean that staff can speak up with more confidence and that failings are identified earlier and responded to quicker. The reforms that we are making will mean greater transparency, stricter control of drugs and a full and thorough investigation of every hospital death. Taken together, they mean that warning signs about untypical patterns of death are more likely to be examined at the time, not 25 years later.
However, as well as these policy changes, there is a bigger change, too, which I turn to now. Just as with the reports into Mid Staffs and Morecambe Bay, the Gosport report will echo for years to come, and the culture change that these reports call for is as deep-rooted as it is vital. There has been a culture change within the NHS since Gosport, but the culture must change further still. One of the most important things that we learnt from the report is that we must create a culture where complaints are listened to and errors are learnt from, and that this must be embedded at every level in the NHS.
What happened at Gosport was not one individual error; it was a systemic failure to respond appropriately to terrible behaviour. To prevent that from happening again, we need to ensure that we respond appropriately to error—openly, honestly, taking concerns and complaints seriously and seeing them as an opportunity to learn and improve, not a need for cover-up and denial. I want to see a culture that starts by listening to patients and their relatives and by empowering staff to speak up. That starts with leaders creating a culture that is focused on learning not blaming—a culture that is less top-down and less hierarchical, with more autonomy for staff, and that is more open to challenge and change. We need to see better leadership at every level in the NHS to create that culture across the NHS.
Today marks an important moment. Lessons have been learned, will be learned and must be applied. The voices of the vulnerable will be heard. Those with the courage to speak up will be celebrated. Leaders must change the culture to learn from errors, and we must redouble our resolve to create a health service that will be a fitting testament to the Gosport patients and their families. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. I welcome the statement and the tone of his remarks, and I thank him for repeating the unambiguous and clear apology that the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), offered at the Dispatch Box before the summer—it is good to see the previous Secretary of State sitting on the Treasury Bench today.
We welcome the Secretary of State’s apology today. The whole House was shocked when the previous Secretary of State reported the findings of the Gosport inquiry to the House. This Secretary of State is right to remind us that everyone who lost a life was a son or daughter, a mother or father, a sister or brother. As he said, our thoughts are with the families of the 456 patients whose lives were shortened because of what happened at Gosport, and the families of the 200 others who may have suffered—whose lives may have been shortened; because of missing medical records, we will never know for sure. That lingering doubt—never knowing whether they were victims of what happened at Gosport—must be a particularly intolerable burden for those families affected.
Like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to the victims’ families, who, as he says, have in the face of grief shown immense courage, fortitude and commitment to demand the truth. I think the whole House will pay tribute to them today. I also reiterate our gratitude to the former Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, for his extraordinary dedication, persistence, compassion and leadership in uncovering this injustice. Finally, I applaud those hon. Members who played a central role in establishing this inquiry, not just the previous Secretary of State, but the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), who in recent years has played an important role in her capacity as a constituency MP.
The Secretary of State is correct to say that lessons must be learned and applied across the whole system. We all understand that in the delivery of healthcare and the practice of medicine, sadly, tragically, things can and do sometimes go wrong, but we also understand, as Bishop Jones said in his report, that
“the handing over of a loved one to a hospital, to doctors and nurses is an act of trust”,
but that that trust was
“betrayed.”
I still believe that that betrayal was unforgivable. Patient safety must always be the priority, so when there are systemic failures, it is our duty to act, learn lessons and change policies.
I wish to respond to the Secretary of State’s announcements today. We welcome his commitment to legislation placing more transparency duties on trusts, and we will engage constructively with that legislation. Is it his intention to bring forward amendments to the Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, and if so when, or should we expect a new bill altogether? We look forward to his proposals on strengthening protection for whistleblowers, but he will know that the NHS has just spent £700,000 contesting the case of whistleblower Dr Chris Day, a junior doctor who raised safety concerns. He will also be aware of the British Medical Association survey showing that not even half of doctors feel they would have the confidence to raise concerns about safety. Moreover, he will be aware of how Dr Bawa-Garba’s case played out, with her personal reflections effectively used in evidence against her. Can he offer more details on how he will change the climate in the NHS so that clinicians feel they can speak out without being penalised?
I welcome the thrust of the Secretary of State’s remarks on medical examiners, and I agree they are a crucial reform, but can he offer us some more details? Is it still the Government’s intention that they will be employed directly by acute trusts? He will be aware that this has provoked questions about their independence. We would urge him to go further and base them in local authorities and extend their remit to primary care, nursing homes and mental health and community health trusts. If legislation is needed, we would work constructively with him.
We welcome the review into improving safety when prescribing and dispensing medicine. Clearly, one of the first questions that comes to mind when reading the Gosport report is: how were these prescriptions monitored? The Government’s own research indicates that more than 230 million medication errors take place a year, and it has been estimated that these errors and mix-ups could contribute to as many as 22,000 deaths a year, so this review is clearly urgent. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether it will be an independent review, who will lead it and when we can expect it to report?
Finally, patient safety is compromised when staff are overworked and overburdened with pressures. He will know that we have over 100,000 staff vacancies across the NHS. Some trusts are proposing closing A&E departments overnight because they do not have the staff, and some are even proposing closing chemotherapy wards because they believe that the lack of staffing means services are unsafe. How does the Secretary of State plan to recruit the staff our NHS desperately needs to provide the level of safe care patients deserve?
In conclusion, I offer to work constructively with the Secretary of State to improve patient safety across the NHS, and we support his statement today.
Matt Hancock
I appreciate the tone of the hon. Gentleman, who rightly focuses on the need to ensure that this never happens again, and I join him in thanking Bishop James Jones for his work on this and other inquiries. It was quite brilliant empathetic work. I also thank the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), for whom I have an awful lot of respect.
The core of the questions the hon. Gentleman raised, about the need to ensure that whistleblowers are listened to and that people are heard in the NHS, comes down to culture change. A whole series of policies underpins that culture change, and I will come to them, but ultimately it comes down to this: errors happen in medicine—it is a high-risk business—but what matters is behaviour, that everything is done to minimise errors and, when they are made, to learn from them, rather than try to cover them up. The culture change needs to be driven across the NHS. It has changed and improved in many areas, but there is still much more to do.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether amendments would be tabled to the Health Service Safety Investigations Bill or in separate legislation on whistleblowers. We are looking at both options. Partly it comes down to the technicalities of scope and the exact distinction and definition of the amendments, but I look forward to working with him on that legislation.
The hon. Gentleman asked why gagging clauses are still in use. I may well ask the very same question. They were deemed unacceptable by my predecessor—I join in the tributes to him—who did so much on this agenda. Gagging clauses have been unacceptable in the NHS since 2013. Trusts, which are independent, can legally use them, but I find them unacceptable, and I will do what it takes to stamp them out.
The hon. Gentleman said that too many people in the NHS feel unable to speak up. To ensure a route for this, we now have, in every single NHS trust, an individual separate from line management to whom staff can go to raise concerns. This is part of the culture change, but it is not the whole. Line management itself in every hospital should welcome challenge and concerns, because that is the way to improve practice. Challenges and concerns that are raised with managers should be deemed an opportunity to improve the service offered to patients, rather than a problem to be managed.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned medication errors. Of course, this was not a case of medication error—it would have been far less bad had it been; it was a case of active mis-medication that led to deaths. Medication errors are an important issue, however, and we are bringing in e-prescribing across the board to allow much more accurate measurement, audit and analysis of medication.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that pressures often come from staff shortages. Again, that was emphatically not the concern here, and we absolutely must not muddle up the behaviour here with the issue of staff shortages. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the need for more staff in the NHS. Indeed, we are putting £20 billion into it over the next five years to make sure we have the people we need to deliver the NHS that everyone wants.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and commitment to introduce legislation to compel trusts to report on how they handle staff complaints and concerns, but will he assure the House that trusts will not be penalised if they have more staff concerns raised, because it might be an indicator that they have introduced the culture change necessary for staff to feel able to come forward? Will he also clarify how rapidly we will be rolling out the very welcome introduction of medical examiners?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the number of complaints and concerns raised is not the material factor. A complaint that is actively welcomed and then acted on by management is merely part of the improvement process of any organisation. We should be open to them, welcome them and see them as an important part of the continuous improvement of NHS trusts, which is how many successful organisations see them. As I set out in the statement, medical examiners will be introduced from next April, but I am happy to give her more details of that whole policy.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the proposals in it. As he says, these 450—possibly even 650— deaths were not accidental, but deliberate.
I welcomed the Secretary of State’s attendance at our event yesterday, when we discussed the need for a just and learning culture in the NHS. Obviously, he heard the stories that were related during the event: stories of patients who had lost their lives, and families who have ended up spending their entire lives fighting for justice or change, so they have suffered over and above their bereavement. Staff were obviously not listened to. One witness compared a whistleblower with someone reporting to the police, or a state witness, and pointed out how shocked we would be if the police tried to shut that case up. Whistleblowers should be welcomed as people giving evidence against wrongdoing or failure.
I particularly welcomed the Secretary of State’s comment about reform of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which I think needs to be replaced. I think we need legislation that gives definite protection to people who come forward. As one who has been a clinician for more than 30 years, I can tell the Secretary of State that the long trail of clinicians who have reported concerns and then had their careers ended lies there like a threat to every whistleblower who thinks of speaking up.
If patient safety and the ability of people to speak up in safety are not enshrined in the NHS, we are all under threat. I am sure that not just the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) but Members in all parts of the House would work with the Secretary of State to reform the legislation here and inspire the culture change that is needed in the NHS itself. I certainly would.
Matt Hancock
I agree with an awful lot of what the hon. Lady has said, and I appreciate the wisdom that she brings to this issue with her clinical experience.
The need for a just culture in the NHS is very clear, and the Gosport report makes it clearer still. A just culture means that, yes, there is accountability, but the accountability is established with the intent that the system will improve and people will learn; that people can come forward with concerns rather than covering them up; and that when concerns are expressed, they are welcomed.
I am also pleased about the hon. Lady’s attitude to potential legislation. I look forward to working with her, and, indeed, learning from some of the improvements that have been made in Scotland, to try to ensure that we can get this right.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The events at Gosport are of substantial interest to my constituents in Havant and across the Solent region. I agree with the Secretary of State that lessons must be not only learned but applied. Will he confirm that ensuring patients’ safety will remain at the heart of all that the NHS does, including the development of its new 10-year plan, and will he confirm in particular that better medical records can be produced through, for instance, the use of new technologies?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work. People from across the country, and certainly from across the region, were affected by this. The need for better medical records is underlined in the report. In the case of several hundred people, we do not know whether their lives were shortened or not. Of course technology has a huge part to play in this. From about 15 years ago onwards it is highly unlikely that medical records would have been lost or misplaced in this way, and therefore new technology has a role to play, but it needs to be improved so that access to those records can be made available to the right people at the right time.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I welcome the ambition in the statement for the culture change that is clearly still needed in the NHS. This is the most extraordinary scandal. The Secretary of State is right to highlight the extent to which loved ones were patronised and ignored and staff were often crushed, and how that facilitated the ongoing scandal at Gosport War Memorial Hospital. Clearly, the pursuit of justice is the most pressing priority for the relatives, given how long delayed that is, but may I specifically highlight the Secretary of State’s reference to working with the Business Secretary to establish whether reforms to the legislation are necessary? Does he agree that reformed legislation that allows staff to feel able to speak out—not just in the NHS, but in any occupation—can facilitate the very culture change that he needs so much?
Matt Hancock
Yes. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s work, especially as a Minister in the Department, to make sure that people got to the bottom of this and that the truth was published and brought out in the way that it has been. He is right about the question of justice, but it is currently—rightly—a matter for the police, so I will go no further than that.
I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the legislative framework that we set here in Parliament leads to and underpins the culture that is critical. That is, of course, a matter for the whistleblowing legislation. There are also questions of legal liability. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, often what patients who have been wronged—or the families of patients who have been wronged—want most of all is an apology, an explanation and a commitment that others will not be affected because the lessons will be learnt. Too often what has been offered instead is the phone number of a no-win, no-fee lawyer, and that is not the way to solve this problem.
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and his plain and self-evident commitment to learning from this episode and righting the wrongs. The findings of the report are shocking and heartbreaking, and they affect some of my constituents whose families have suffered so much grief because of the life-shortening policy employed at Gosport War Memorial Hospital. Many of them still have questions many years on, about such matters as criminal investigations. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that an external police team will be carrying out an investigation on whether to press charges, but can he provide some guidance on the timeline and whether the police can realistically expect justice to be done, and seen to be done, through the criminal courts?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is right. The grief over the loss of a loved one whose life has been foreshortened is compounded if that is not acknowledged by the authorities, and we therefore acknowledge it once again today. As for the police investigation, the timings are of course a matter for the police themselves, who are rightly independent. The process currently under way is the reviewing of all the evidence to establish what and whether prosecutions should be brought forward. That will continue into the new year, and the police will then make a statement on the next stages of their investigation.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
On 10 October, my constituent Bridget Reeves submitted a petition with more than 100,000 signatures to the Government to trigger a parliamentary debate. Today is the anniversary of her grandmother Elsie Devine’s death at Gosport War Memorial Hospital. She died after concerns had emerged from staff at the hospital.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his commitment to addressing many of the problems that have already been identified and are emerging from the various inquiries. The families want justice, among other things, but they will not get it until the outcome of the fourth police investigation—and I welcome the fact that it is being carried out by a different police authority.
I have two questions. First, will the Secretary of State meet the families face to face? Secondly, while I acknowledge his points about concerns of culture in the NHS, I am concerned about the culture in the coroner service, in relation to not just this case but others, including one that I met constituents to discuss this morning. There is a governance issue relating to when the coroner service needs investigating in the case of some inquests. Will the Secretary of State work with the Attorney General and pick up the concerns that Members expressed about a number of inquests?
Matt Hancock
The point about coroners is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) is present. He would delighted to meet the hon. Lady to take up that point—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
indicated assent.
Matt Hancock
Yes: good.
I will, of course, be happy to meet the families, but the advice of Bishop James Jones is that that will be appropriate after this stage of the police investigation. I wrote to the families to explain the position before making my statement. It is important that we go through the process properly during the police investigation to ensure that justice can be done, but I shall be more than happy to meet the families at the appropriate moment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I always listen to all of my colleagues with equal doses of respect and affection, but I am moved to observe as we approach the festive season that it would probably be a good idea for the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) to send copies of his textbook on succinct questions as Christmas presents to all colleagues.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I join the cross-party support for my right hon. Friend’s statement and add my voice in commending the dedication and commitment of Bishop James Jones, who, I am pleased to say, is I think in the Chamber listening to the Government response to his report.
I am a great supporter of the National Guardian’s Office and the “freedom to speak up” guardians; in fact I am such a strong supporter that I wear its lanyard around my neck and have done ever since I was in the Health Department. But a number of people who make complaints either do not yet have sufficient confidence in these guardians or feel that their complaints are not properly addressed. There are however good examples of best practice, where some chief executives of trusts have a regular, routine meeting with guardians to make sure that complaints are brought directly to their attention. Will my right hon. Friend work with the senior leaders across the NHS and the National Guardian’s Office to ensure that best practice is used so we can give the most possible confidence to people with concerns about safety?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely I am happy to do that, and I am happy to commend my hon. Friend’s lanyard, too. Ultimately culture change and having a good culture comes down to the leadership within the NHS and individual trusts. It has struck me in the four months that I have been doing this job that the trusts that have the best results in terms of outcomes for patients, waiting times and waiting lists and finances are also those that are hot on this subject; they listen to complaints and act on them, because they know that that is the way to improve their organisation. I want to see that sort of best practice right across the board.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Like colleagues, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It was my constituent Gillian Mackenzie 21 years ago who was the first relative to raise concerns, and she has been battling ever since. She came to me 11 years ago and it was with pleasure that I introduced her and the other families to my colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). I am grateful for the changes in the health service that will hopefully prevent any such dreadful and shocking episode from happening again.
I must bring the Secretary of State back to the justice issue, however, as it is very important. I appreciate that it concerns a different Department, but the Secretary of State said in his statement that the police
“must be allowed to complete that process and follow the evidence, so that justice is done.”
A few weeks ago I had a constructive meeting with Assistant Chief Constable Downing, who is in charge of that. I would like a commitment from the Government that there will be sufficient funding for the full assessment, and, if it goes to investigation, sufficient funding in the budget for a proper investigation to be done so that relatives can get the justice they have been denied for so long.
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course that is the Government’s position, and I am very happy to reiterate it today. The police need to be able to follow the evidence without fear or favour.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I declare an interest as a registered nurse and someone who has worked in areas using syringe drivers and controlled drugs. I welcome the measures announced today, but may I make two further suggestions? First, there are very strict guidelines for nurses on controlling the stock of controlled drugs, and wrongdoing is picked up very quickly. There is not, however, enough training in the use, the dosage, the method and the route of controlled drugs that would give nurses confidence to speak up. Secondly, this situation could have been picked up much sooner if we had a proper IT system that shares medical notes between hospitals and doctors.
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is right on both points, and I am very happy to work with her on them. On the latter point, there is still much more work to do to have a system that is fully interoperable between secondary and primary care. As she says, many patients’ GPs might have picked up on the unusual patterns if they had had access to hospital notes. That now does happen in a small number of hospitals, but it is central to improving the technological capability of the NHS.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and his overall approach on patient safety. We have talked a lot about the need to change the culture from one of blame to one of accountability and transparency. That is easy to say, but difficult to implement so, as well as the changes to the annual report and procedures and process changes, will there be additional training and practical support that can help embed this new culture?
Matt Hancock
Training has improved over the last couple of decades. The training programmes are independently devised for doctors by the royal colleges and are developed and implemented with the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. There is still much to do to drive through the modern culture of inclusivity and bringing in ideas from all places and to remove some of the unnecessary hierarchies in the world of medicine, both within the NHS and without. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that.
Finally, may I end by saying that there is still work to do, not least on the judicial element, and all of us should thank Bishop James Jones for how he has handled this process and made sure that people feel that justice can be done and that the learnings can be taken?
Bill Presented
Palestinian Statehood (Recognition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Layla Moran, supported by Richard Burden, Sir Vince Cable, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Tim Farron, Wera Hobhouse, Ben Lake, Norman Lamb, Stephen Lloyd, Caroline Lucas, Jess Phillips and Dr Philippa Whitford, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the recognition of the State of Palestine.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 February 2019, and to be printed (Bill 295).
Marriage and Civil Partnership (Consent)
Wednesday 21st November 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Marriage and Civil Partnership (Consent) Bill 2017-19 View all Marriage and Civil Partnership (Consent) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the person registering a marriage or civil partnership to attest the valid consent of both parties to the marriage or civil partnership before it is solemnized; and for connected purposes.
Last year, a constituent of mine, Daphne Franks, came to my advice surgery on a Saturday morning to tell me the horrifying story of her mother, Joan Blass. It was a story that I could hardly believe was possible in modern Britain, and it showed clearly that our marriage laws are sadly deficient in one important aspect, which has provided the reason for my Bill.
Born in April 1924 and widowed in 2008, Joan Blass lived next door to her daughter in the Gledhow district of my Leeds North East constituency. Towards the end of 2011, Joan was working in her garden one afternoon when she met Colman Folan, who struck up a conversation with her while she was standing at the gate from her garden to the street. She invited Mr Folan into her home for a cup of tea, and within one month of their first meeting, Colman Folan had moved into Joan’s house, taking up residence in her spare bedroom.
Joan had been diagnosed with vascular dementia in early 2011. At first it appeared that Colman was looking after her very well, although he seemed to be rather controlling and secretive. He also became increasingly hostile towards her family. He began to take Joan to visit her friends, as well as some relatives, all over the country, and in 2015, he and Joan flew to Budapest, even though by this time she was getting very frail and travelling made her stressed and exhausted. For the 10 days that they were away, Daphne, her daughter, had no idea where she was.
Sadly, on 26 March 2016, Joan Blass died of cancer, not long before her 92nd birthday. When her daughter saw her shortly after her death, she was still wearing her first husband’s wedding ring, but three days after her mother’s death, Daphne discovered that Colman and Joan had been married in a civil ceremony at Leeds town hall on 26 October 2015.
Hon. Members may imagine what a shock that discovery was to Daphne, her brother and the rest of Joan’s family. At the time of the marriage, Joan was 91 and Colman was 67. No family member or friend had been told about the secret marriage ceremony.
Daphne asked her solicitor and the police for help. She recalled that Colman had stopped even communicating with her or any other family member in 2014, for no obvious reason. Although Daphne continued to see her mother every day in her home, she always felt a little frightened of Colman.
Joan had made a will some years before meeting Colman, but Daphne discovered, to her surprise and shock, that a marriage automatically revokes a previous will. Colman now had complete control over Joan’s estate, in spite of the fact that Daphne had previously had power of attorney on behalf of her mother during her lifetime. The solicitor advised the family that it was almost impossible to annul a marriage after death and that the only ground on which the marriage could be annulled would be if it could be proved that either partner had a lack of capacity to make a free and rational decision to marry. Unfortunately, no such evidence existed.
Further pain was caused to Joan’s family after her funeral wishes were denied by Colman. Joan had always made it clear that she did not wish to be buried, yet Colman insisted on it. The family’s solicitor advised that a single day’s hearing at the Leeds division of the High Court would settle the matter in Joan’s and the family’s favour, upholding the wishes of the deceased. However, after a four-day hearing that cost the family all their savings and assets—more than £200,000—the judge ruled in Colman’s favour because Joan had never written down her wishes. Furthermore, even if it had been possible to annul the marriage, an annulled marriage cannot overturn the revocation of a will through marriage. Parties in a marriage must understand the financial consequences of entering into that marriage, as we see in the Court of Protection judgment in E.J. v. S.D. in 2017.
I am presenting my Bill in an attempt to close some of the loopholes in the statutes governing marriage in this country. It is not good enough for a registrar to say that simply because one of the participants in a marriage ceremony was smiling at the time, consent was happily given. Much of the anecdotal evidence suggests that Joan had no idea she had ever been married to Folan, and there was clear evidence that her mental capacity was severely reduced in the last years of her life. However, there is no requirement for registrars to ensure that both parties in a marriage are aware of what they are doing when they enter into a contract to be married. There are protections under the law to prevent marriage under duress, but believing that duress is not present simply because one of the parties looks content does not mean that there is the mental capacity for consent.
My Bill would establish a number of improvements and protections against what I would call predatory marriage—a term already in circulation in Canada and now used by Joan’s family. First, the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Consent) Bill would establish that marriage should no longer revoke a previous will in every case—or, indeed, in any case. The majority of those affected are entering into second marriages and are from the older generation. Secondly, the Bill would establish that there should be better training for registrars to ensure that robust procedures for safeguarding vulnerable individuals are put in place. Mark Thomson, the Registrar General for England and Wales, has said that he wants to “modernise” registration procedures.
Thirdly, the Bill proposes that capacity to marry should be established via a simple questionnaire to alert registrars that an assessment of capacity may be needed before the ceremony is carried out and that a medical capacity assessment may also be required. Simply smiling during a marriage ceremony should not be assumed to mean consent if there is no mental capacity to make such a decision in the first place. Fourthly, the Bill proposes that notices of intention of a marriage should be published on the internet so that families such as Daphne’s can discover much sooner that a marriage has taken place, or is to take place, even if their presence is not requested or wanted.
I would like to thank Daphne and Stephen Franks for bringing their very distressing case to my attention as their local Member of Parliament. I believe that the case has profound implications for many hundreds of other families across the country who may find themselves in a similar situation, and of course it goes without saying that this could affect many other Members. I would also like to thank Sarah Young, a solicitor and partner in the firm of Ridley & Hall in Leeds, who has specialised in marriage law, for her help and advice in bringing this to the attention of hon. Members, including, I hope, members of the Government and my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Fabian Hamilton, Rachel Reeves, Alex Sobel, Tracey Crouch, Alec Shelbrooke, Preet Kaur Gill, Caroline Lucas, Sir Edward Davey, Karen Lee and Richard Burden present the Bill.
Fabian Hamilton accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019, and to be printed (Bill 296).
Fisheries Bill
Wednesday 21st November 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 View all Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to introduce the Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I may, I should like to begin my introduction of this legislation on a personal note. My father was a fish merchant, and my family have made their living from the sea for generations. That has given me a deep personal appreciation of the risks and sacrifices undertaken by those who go to sea to ensure that we have healthy and nutritious food. There are Members of this House who know those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to provide us with the food that we enjoy, and I would like to say that those who work so hard and take such risks to bring us the bounty of the sea will be first and foremost in my mind in our deliberations today. We are in all their debt.
I want to underline the fact that I am deeply grateful to the team at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the work they have done on the preparation of the White Paper that preceded this Bill, as well as on the Bill, the explanatory memorandum and everything that goes with them. DEFRA has some of the finest civil servants in the Government, but the fisheries team stand out. They are men and women of dedication, deep knowledge and commitment, and I am grateful to them, as I am also to my predecessors in this role as Secretary of State. Every single one of my predecessors has sought to do their best for the fishing industry, and it would be invidious to single any of them out. However, I want to pay a special tribute to three ministerial or ex-ministerial colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) has done an enormous amount to champion the interests of the fishing communities across the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) has done an enormous amount to improve the operation of the common fisheries policy while we have been in it. And the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), has been an outstanding negotiator on Britain’s behalf, and in his time in office—which I hope will continue for many years to come—he has done an enormous amount for coastal communities across the country.
One of the pleasures in bringing forward the Bill is to be able to acknowledge that, whatever position individuals may have taken in the referendum on our membership of the European Union, there is a widespread recognition across the House that the common fisheries policy did damage. It did environmental damage to fish stocks and to our marine environment. It also did economic damage to the fishing industry, which has been such a critical part of this country’s heritage and which can again become a vital part of our economic future. The common fisheries policy did social damage as well, because coastal communities suffered. Their economies were hollowed out and businesses collapsed as a result of its operation. Whatever position we may have taken in that referendum, taking back control of our waters, leaving the common fisheries policy and once again becoming an independent coastal state will give us an opportunity to lead environmentally, to revive the fishing industry economically and to ensure that our coastal communities once more have the opportunity for a renaissance.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I agree with the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Scottish National party, about the damage the CFP did. However, the political text on the withdrawal agreement states that there will be:
“Cooperation…internationally to ensure fishing at sustainable levels, promote resource conservation… the development of measures for the conservation, rational management and regulation of fisheries… a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares”
and so on. That is the current form, in black and white. Although that might mean something new and better, is it not the case that, given the UK’s negotiating failures so far, what we will end up with will look very similar to the terms of the CFP?
Michael Gove
No, not at all. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous respect, for acknowledging many of the defects and flaws in the common fisheries policy, but we have been clear—this is reflected in both the draft withdrawal agreement and the accompanying draft political declaration on our future economic partnership—that we will be negotiating at the December 2020 Fisheries Council as an independent coastal state, ready to ensure that we decide on access to our waters, that we decide on total allowable catches and that we decide on quotas, and it is on that basis that we can ensure that the interests of our coastal communities are respected.
Of course, as an independent coastal state, we will be governed by the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. That landmark piece of international law makes it clear that all independent coastal states will negotiate with their neighbours to ensure that the environmental health of fish stocks are preserved and that an equitable share of each nation’s bounty can be agreed, because we as a nation depend for the fish we eat not just on the fish in our waters—of course, we have the healthiest stocks of any country in the existing European Union—but on negotiating with other independent coastal states, including Norway, the Faroes, Iceland and others, to ensure that we get the mix of fish that consumers demand and that society has a right to expect.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that any party represented in this Chamber that promotes continued membership of the European Union is letting our fishermen down, because it is already promoting continued membership of the common fisheries policy?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend knows what she is talking about, and she is absolutely right. The Scottish National party wants us to stay in the European Union, and therefore in the common fisheries policy, and the Scottish National party’s MEPs, when given the chance to vote in the European Parliament, voted to stay in the common fisheries policy. However, I do want to acknowledge that there are independent members of the SNP who do not toe the line of their leadership. There are individual voters who have lent the SNP their votes in the past but who do not agree with that view. Also, to be fair, the Scottish Government and the Minister responsible, Fergus Ewing, in helping to ensure that this legislation can work for Scotland, have operated in a constructive manner, as indeed have officials in the devolved Administrations—sadly, we do not have the Executive in Northern Ireland, but the officials there have negotiated in good faith, as have the Labour Administration in Cardiff. I want to underline that the legislation we bring forward will see powers moving to the devolved Administrations. It will be a diffusion of power and a strengthening of devolution.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
Many individuals and organisations campaigned very hard to get the firmest rules on sustainability as part of reform of the common fisheries policy. Will my right hon. Friend give them an assurance that any vessel fishing in British waters after we leave the European Union will be required to maintain the highest levels of sustainability for those fish stocks and to work with the Government to do so?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill makes it clear that there are principles, to which the Government will be held, that ensure that fishing will be sustainable and that our marine environment will be restored to full health. The Bill will give the Government powers to ensure that no vessel can fish in our waters unless it adheres to those high environmental standards.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State just be absolutely clear about this? At the end of March, we will leave the common fisheries policy, but then we will immediately be back in it, by giving the EU the right to make all decisions for however long the transition goes on. It worries me very much when I hear more and more Ministers talking on the “Today” programme about the transition being extended again and again. Why did he allow the Prime Minister to accept in the withdrawal agreement that fisheries would stay as part of the transition?
Michael Gove
I will give the hon. Lady, for whom I have enormous respect and affection, one piece of perhaps unsolicited advice: I find that in the morning it is better not to listen to the “Today” programme; Radio 3, or even Radio 2, ensures that I have a more equable morning. However, she makes a very important point about the transition period. A number of Members of this House hoped that in the transition period, when it was agreed earlier this year, the common fisheries policy would be outside, but there is one very significant departure from the overall transition period, which applies to the common fisheries policy, which is that the European Union acknowledged that from 2021 we will be an independent coastal state. Therefore, when we negotiate in the December 2020 Fisheries Council, although we will still legally be a member of the European Union, we will be negotiating then as an independent coastal state. That is why I said at the time that we need to keep our eyes on the prize of making sure that after that transition period we can have all the opportunities to do the right thing environmentally, economically and socially, as I mentioned earlier.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I would like to take as many interventions as possible, in fairness to all those Members who necessarily cannot stay for the duration of the debate.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
A moment ago, the Secretary of State offered the House some warm words about his commitment to sustainability. Could he therefore explain why the Bill contains only one vague mention of maximum sustainable yields? Can he give us a guarantee that, under his new vision for fisheries management, we will adhere to maximum sustainable yields and to scientific advice, as opposed to what we have done for years and years, which is to allow total catches to exceed those sustainable yields by up to 50%?
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on that point, because it is germane to the point about co-operation with our neighbouring states and the implications arising from the transitional arrangements. Can he tell the House how the EU-Norway-Faroes mackerel deal, which is currently up for renegotiation and renewal in 2020, will be handled in practical terms, and what his Government are doing to ensure that the voice of our fishermen is heard in that important negotiation?
Michael Gove
We will be taking part in bilateral and multilateral negotiations in the run-up to December 2020, in anticipation of being, as I have said, a fully independent coastal state from January 2021. We will be negotiating with all our neighbours to ensure that we get the very best deal for our fishermen. On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, which was very fair, about collaboration with fishing organisations, in preparing the Bill we have worked with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and a variety of other producer organisations, and every single one of them has said that it wants to see the Bill on the statute book. Of course there will be debate in Committee, and there may well be amendments that can refine and improve what we want to do, but there is not a single representative organisation that speaks for the fisheries industry or for fish processors anywhere that does not want to see the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The one fly in the ointment is, of course, the elephant in the room: the withdrawal deal that the Prime Minister has produced in recent weeks. Can the Secretary of State confirm that article 6(2) of the protocol relating to Northern Ireland could be interpreted to read that every EU fisheries regulation in existence will continue to be applied to Northern Ireland fishermen alone if the backstop is applied?
Michael Gove
I do not believe that is the right interpretation. I do recognise that a number of colleagues across the House have concerns about the backstop arrangement, but let me underline one point. Under the backstop arrangement, were it ever to come into place, the United Kingdom would be an independent coastal state. Some people have read the withdrawal agreement and taken it to mean that somehow the common fisheries policy would be extended if the backstop were to come into operation and that we would not have control over our territorial waters and our exclusive economic zone. That is not the case. Even in the event of the backstop coming into operation, we will be an independent coastal state, and fishermen, whether they are in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, will be able to take advantage of the additional fishing opportunities that arise as a result.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Is the Secretary of State aware that article 6(2) of the Northern Ireland protocol enables vessels registered in Northern Ireland, but not vessels registered anywhere else in the United Kingdom, to sell their goods into the European Union tariff free? Does he therefore accept that vessels registered in Scotland, and indeed in the rest of the UK, will be at a competitive disadvantage when that part of the backstop comes into force, which, incidentally, under article 154 will be immediately?
Michael Gove
The hon. and learned Lady draws attention to an important point. On the backstop, as the House will hear at other points, there are some who argue that Northern Ireland is placed at a competitive advantage compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, and there are some who argue that Northern Ireland is disadvantaged relative to other parts of the United Kingdom. One thing that is clear, however, is that Northern Ireland—an integral and valued part of the United Kingdom—when we leave the European Union, will leave alongside the rest of the United Kingdom and be part of one independent coastal state that is capable of taking advantage of all these fisheries opportunities.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give us some idea of his ambition for after we leave the common fisheries policy? It seems to me that we could have a big expansion of our domestic fishing industry, with a lot more fish landed and a big increase in fish processing in the UK. Is that his ambition, and how big will it be?
Michael Gove
A whopper, I am tempted to say. My right hon. Friend is right. Even the Scottish Government acknowledge that there could be a £1 billion bonanza for the United Kingdom if we manage fish stocks effectively. That makes it all the more surprising, when the analysis of the Scottish Government’s own statisticians has the bonanza at that level, that Scottish National party politicians in Europe and elsewhere are standing in the way of our leaving the common fisheries policy, in stark contrast to Scottish Conservatives.
Michael Gove
I am very happy to give way to a distinguished English Conservative.
Richard Drax
If the backstop is not implemented but the implementation period is extended, can the Secretary of State confirm that that would mean we have to remain in the CFP beyond the 21 months? Is he aware—perhaps he can reassure the House—that the French are circling, as we all expect them to do, with Sabine Weyand saying that the British
“would have to swallow a link between access to products and fisheries in future agreements”?
Michael Gove
I note the reporting of what Ms Sabine Weyand said. One of the interesting things—again, I alluded to this earlier—is that different Members will have different assessments of the advantages and disadvantages that lie within the draft withdrawal agreement, but it is instructive that the negotiator on behalf of the European Commission, Ms Weyand, felt that she had to sweeten the pill, particularly on fisheries, to get EU nations to sign, because there is an acknowledgment on the part of EU nations that UK negotiators have safeguarded access to our waters and secured our status as an independent coastal state. The initial negotiating mandate of the European Union has not been satisfied in these negotiations with respect to fisheries, but the red lines laid down by our Prime Minister have been defended. It is absolutely critical, without prejudice to any other conversations, to acknowledge that.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
On the powers of the devolved nations, the Secretary of State said during the Vote Leave campaign that one of the Brexit dividends is that immigration powers could be devolved to Scotland. Immigration is crucial to the seafood processing industry and to the fishing boats, particularly on the west coast of Scotland. Does he agree that Scotland should get control of immigration so we can manage our fishing industry?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am grateful to those who work in the fish processing industry, and indeed to those who work offshore, who come from across the world, and not just from European economic area nations, to help ensure that industry is strong. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that our post-Brexit immigration policy will be truly global in scope and focused on making sure this country is an economic success, emphasising that we have taken back control.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentioned the red lines. The Prime Minister has told the House on numerous occasions that we will leave the customs union, yet the withdrawal agreement clearly envisages that we would remain in the customs union under the backstop and that, having entered, we could not leave unless the EU consented—the so-called “Hotel California” arrangement. The Prime Minister has also assured the House in very strong terms that she would never contemplate a border down the Irish sea, yet in the agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol, exactly that is envisaged. I regret to say that, given that, I find it difficult to take seriously the commitments that the Prime Minister has now given to the House. If I have trouble believing her, why should I believe the Secretary of State?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend, like all hon. Members, must make his own judgment on what he chooses to believe, and on who and what he wishes to support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I will answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) before giving way. We have been told at different times that we will have to bend or buckle when it comes to fisheries. The Prime Minister and the negotiating team have absolutely not bent or buckled, which is why the European Commission’s own negotiator has had to attempt to sweeten the pill.
It will not have escaped my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford that other countries are expressing their dissatisfaction with the withdrawal agreement for precisely that reason. He spent a distinguished time as a Minister and as the Conservative party’s Europe spokesman, and he must know that if other countries are complaining that they have lost out, it is a sign that this country has secured an advantage.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Further to the Secretary of State’s earlier point about expanding fishing opportunities, I am happy to report that Brixham in my constituency has had another record year and in 2017 landed over £40 million-worth of fish, but it is now limited because it is at full stretch. Brixham is anxiously waiting to hear what my right hon. Friend will do to guarantee that it can have access to funds such as the European maritime and fisheries fund to allow it to expand. Brixham is really keen to get on with it.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I congratulate her on championing her constituency so successfully, and I thank the fishermen of Brixham for their work. In the EU we have the EMFF, which provides support for individual fishing communities, and this Bill makes provision for a replacement so that grants and loans can be provided for just such investment.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I want to believe everything the Secretary of State has said, but he will know that the industry has a long memory, and it can remember the last-minute sell-out in the original Common Market negotiations. The industry still fears that is going to happen again. Can he give a categorical answer that under no circumstances will any further concessions be granted?
Michael Gove
I have been very clear about how determined we are to fight on fisheries. We have defended our red lines. My hon. Friend mentions what happened in the 1970s. I was a boy then, but the consequences had a profound impact on my family and on my father’s business. There is no way I can ever forget what happened then, and no way that I will be anything other than a resolute champion for the interests of coastal communities such as the one my hon. Friend serves and represents so admirably.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
According to the withdrawal agreement, we will be in the common fisheries policy until December 2020. Who will represent the UK at the annual Fisheries Council meeting in 2019, after we have left the EU?
Michael Gove
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice).
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The Secretary of State has been very generous in giving way, but it is important that he is allowed to answer one question before taking another.
Michael Gove
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are right to say that I want to make sure I can answer as many questions as possible, from Members in as many parts of the House as possible, but this is a well subscribed debate and I have been able to make only about two or three of the points I wanted to make while I have been answering questions.
Michael Gove
But because this legislation is so important and because of the passions aroused, I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr Walker
I thank the Secretary of State for that. It would be nice if we could talk a little more about fish, and I want to talk briefly about bluefin tuna. For the first time in about 50 or 60 years, these wonderful fish are appearing off the shore of Cornwall and up the west coast. When we have left the EU, will we look at having a recreational catch-and-release fishery for bluefin tuna? If we could discuss that, and if I could bring a delegation to see the Secretary of State to discuss it, I would be extremely grateful, because there is huge commercial and conservational opportunity attached to such a fishery.
Michael Gove
I quite agree and we are actively exploring that. One of the points I was due to make is that recreational fishing is a crucial part of the life of the nation; it provides, through tourism and other expenditure, support for many important parts of our rural and coastal economy.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
A bluefin tuna was washed up on Tolsta beach in Lewis last weekend. I would be happy to join any delegation with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), because we have the same interests and needs. On the wider point, the Secretary of State mentioned “bend or buckle” a while ago. In the debate on 27 February 2018 in Westminster Hall, an astonishing number of Tory MPs supported this claim:
“Ideally, at 11 pm on 29 March 2019, we need to have absolute and 100% control of our fisheries, without it being part of any implementation or transition deal.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 290WH.]
That was echoed by loads of Tory MPs. Was that bend or was it buckle?
Michael Gove
Interestingly, an extraordinary number of Conservative MPs were in that debate because an extraordinary number of Conservative MPs want the very best for our fishing industry. Scottish Conservative MPs have stood up for coastal communities in a way that the Scottish National party has signally failed to do. I will tell the hon. Gentleman who bent and who buckled. It was the SNP MEPs who bent and buckled in Strasbourg and Brussels when they agreed to keep us imprisoned in the CFP.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
There are at least 65 co-operatives in the fishing industry, which are worth more than £48 million at the moment. Would not one of the best ways to help boost the fishing co-operatives sector, which keeps profits in hard-pressed coastal communities, be to ensure a radical reform of the quota system, two thirds of which is held by just three opaque companies?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As we leave the CFP, there is an opportunity to reallocate quota. We have already seen a reallocation, with a 13% uplift for the under-10 metre fleet under this Government. There is a crucial point to make: some of the quota that is necessarily allocated is allocated for the types of stocks—pelagic stocks—of which the under- 10 metre fleet, simply because of the nature of where those fish are found, would be poorly placed to take advantage. So he is absolutely right to say there is a case for reform, but a significant amount of quota could not, at this stage, be allocated in the way that he might suggest.
Michael Gove
I am keen to allow my hon. Friend, who has shown remarkable patience, the chance to intervene.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene and not avoiding me altogether. We have talked about a “bonanza” of fish and about recreational fishing, but will he give assurances that we will not bend from our standards on sustainability? After all, we are talking about a wild harvest; fishermen have to make money, but they cannot make it unless the stocks are sustainable. Does he also agree that the Bill has included references to the 25-year environment plan and the nature capital approach and that this is the right way to go, demonstrating that our Government have the environment and sustainability at their heart?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we adhere to the principles behind the maximum sustainable yield. The early clauses in this Bill set out clear principles by which any Secretary of State must be bound in order to put the environment and sustainability first. More than that, as we all know, under the CFP we have not had policies that put the environment first. Now, as an independent coastal state, we can work with organisations ranging from Greenpeace to Charles Clover’s Blue Marine Foundation to ensure that we have a policy that is right environmentally and right economically.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I am pleased that we are now starting to put the environment first, but almost 80% of the UK fishing fleet is small-scale and it lands only 11% of the fish by value. Given that this fleet is not only more profitable to local economies, but employs more local fishermen and uses more sustainable fishing practices, will the Bill allow larger quotas to independent vessels under 10 metres?
Michael Gove
Absolutely, the Bill explicitly allows us to ensure that new quota can be allocated to the under- 10 metre fleet, which exhibits all the virtues that my hon. Friend outlined. As I mentioned in response to the question from the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), it would be inappropriate to transfer some aspects of quota, but it has been the case, not least under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), that we have already been transferring quota to the under-10 metre fleet, for the reasons that my hon. Friend mentions.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is generous with his time. On the comments made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), the Scottish Conservatives can safely say they will take no lessons on the CFP from the SNP, who would sell us straight back into it if they had their way of re-entering Europe.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. I am tempted to say, because so far we have not had a pun in this debate, that the SNP wants to have its hake and eat it. The truth is that SNP Members pose as defenders of Scotland’s fishing communities, yet all the time we were in the EU scarcely a peep they emitted on behalf of the fishing industry. Now that we are leaving, they still want to tie us to the CFP, because they put the abstract ideology of their separatist sentiment ahead of the real interests of Scotland’s communities, and that is why they were so decisively rejected by Scotland’s coastal communities at the last general election.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
This point has been made, but I will make it again. I have the great honour of representing the fishing village of Mevagissey. The Secretary of State may remember that he promised to come to see the fishermen there—they are still very much looking forward to his visit. That thriving fishing community is made up of under-10 metre vessels. So will he confirm that this Bill will provide opportunities for our under-10 metre fleet to take advantage of the new quota that will be available, so that it can grow, thrive and rebuild the great industry that we have lost?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point, one that was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord)—
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Michael Gove
I am about to use a word that I rarely use, but I am going to use it with greater pleasure than I have ever used it before—no! I am tempted to say: no, nae, never, no more. The one thing I did want to underline is that the under-10 metre fleet, for the reasons outlined before, is a crucial part of the health and vibrancy of coastal communities and of our fishing industry overall. The profitable nature of its enterprise and its commitment to high environmental standards should be emulated by others.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I am going to make a wee bit of progress now, if that is okay. One thing that is clear about this Bill is that it has benefited from the support of the devolved Administrations and of non-governmental organisations. As a result, it now allows us to ensure that, as an independent coastal state, we can do what so many have wished, which is fully control access to our own waters and allocate quotas as we wish. Clauses 7 and 8, 11 and 12 will revoke the existing rights of EU nations to access UK waters and ensure that the UK will license individual vessels from other nations on our terms, in a way that is consistent with high environmental principles, to demonstrate that we will have taken back control, not just of our territorial waters, but of our exclusive economic zone extending 200 miles out around the whole United Kingdom. We will make sure, as a number of hon. Members have asked, that we put conservation first.
Our fish are a great natural, renewable resource. We need to make sure that the lessons of the past are learned and that the mistakes that have been made while we have been in the common fisheries policy, and that other states have made through over-fishing, are at last corrected. We need to make sure that the network of marine protected areas and marine conservation zones around our nation are used to regenerate fish stocks. We need to make sure that we have available the effective data so that we can set quotas and total allowable catches sustainably. We need to make sure that we use the world-leading science available in this country from CEFAS and others to ensure that we set a global gold standard for conservation.
One particular way in which the environmental argument has been accepted by some but applied in a way that can be economically harmful and sometimes environmentally counterproductive is the way in which the discard ban has operated. It is quite right that we should seek to restrict fishing that is carried out in a way that might damage the health and resilience of individual species, but because of the nature of much of the fishing that goes on in our waters, particularly but not exclusively in the case of the under-10 fleet, there is a risk of bycatch. No matter how sophisticated the gear, there is a risk that some of the fish caught belong to some of the species that we wish to protect and that these choke species, having been caught by fishermen at a level that threatens sustainability, have to be deployed in a way that means that the fishermen can no longer carry on their business.
Michael Gove
No, not at this point.
We will introduce, as New Zealand, Norway and other nations have, an approach that means that fishermen can catch and can land, but if they exceed the discard ban, they will pay a penalty. That will ensure that we have a sustainable approach to fisheries, that we enable fishermen to carry on going to sea and that we combine their economic resilience with the environmental resilience of the stocks that we wish to preserve. That change is an example of how we can change individual common fisheries policy rules and regulations by giving effect to the Bill and the framework that it will provide. It is clear from all the representative fisheries organisations that they recognise that individual aspects of the CFP need remedial action and reform. That can happen only if we allow the Bill to pass, which is why it is so important that it makes a speedy passage through the House.
Another point made by several hon. Friends and hon. Members is about the importance of protecting not only diversity at sea but diversity in the fishing industry itself. We need to ensure not only that the pelagic fleets that sail from Peterhead and Fraserburgh have new opportunities, but that those that fish closer to coastal waters—often, the under-10 metre fleets that colleagues have praised—have an opportunity to take advantage of new opportunities. As a result of this legislation, we will have additional quota that we can reallocate in a way that is equitable, fair and sustainable.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Before he moves on, will the Secretary of State give way?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
What do the Secretary of State’s words on bycatch and everything else mean for spurdog bycatchers?
Michael Gove
It will be easier for those who are responsible for that bycatch to ensure that they can continue to fish in a way that is both environmentally sustainable and economically resilient. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
Owen Smith
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous. I am trying to reconcile two things that he has said: first, that we are going to be more mindful of sustainability, and secondly, that we are going to catch more fish. The total allowable sole catch in the Irish sea is currently set at 40,000, when the scientific advice is that it should be zero. Will we be catching more or fewer sole in the Irish sea under the Secretary of State’s future plans?
Michael Gove
When it comes to individual species, we will follow the scientific advice that CEFAS and others give us. Overall, however, as we take back control we will have the opportunity to catch more fish in our own waters. The majority of the fish that are caught in UK waters are not caught by UK vessels. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one example. I do not know whether he knows what percentage of cod caught in the English channel is caught by French boats—I do not know whether anyone in the House does—but it is 83%. What percentage of cod caught in the English channel is caught by UK vessels? Just 7%. That is a fundamental inequity in the allocation of national resources. The Bill will allow us to decide who catches what and where, and in line with which environmental principles.
It is not often that a piece of legislation comes before the House that provides us with an opportunity to say to some of the most fragile communities in our country, our coastal communities, “There is real hope and a chance of an economic renaissance. Your suffering has been recognised and we can make a positive difference.” It is not often that legislation comes before the House that, if passed, would see an industry potentially double in size and in its capacity to generate new jobs and new economic opportunities. It is very, very rare that legislation that comes before the House achieves such social and economic goals and at the same time allows this country to underline its credentials as a leader in environmental practice of a kind that other countries would wish to emulate. Not only does this Fisheries Bill manage to bring hope to coastal communities and to reinforce the economic gains of leaving the European Union, but it underlines our credentials as an environmental leader, which is why I commend the legislation to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions.
In respect of the question relating to taxation relief and international tax enforcement (Jersey), the Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 238, so the Question was agreed to.
In respect of the question relating to taxation relief and international tax enforcement (Isle of Man), the Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 238, so the Question was agreed to.
In respect of the question relating to taxation relief and international tax enforcement (Guernsey), the Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 238, so the Question was agreed to.
In respect of the question relating to the immigration health charge order, the Ayes were 300 and the Noes were 232, so the Question was agreed to.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State to speak, let me say that I hope colleagues realise that there is a lot of pressure on time. A lot of people wish to speak so, apart from Front Benchers, obviously, I will be asking everyone else to try to keep their speeches below 10 minutes. I do not want to impose a time limit at this point, and that would, I hope, allow everybody to get in.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in his words of support for all those who work in the fishing industry. It is important that we recognise them.
Amid all the ongoing chaos that we have seen over the Brexit negotiations, Ministers have consistently identified leaving the common fisheries policy as one of the few policy areas in which the Government’s deal can deliver. When the White Paper was published in July, the Secretary of State said:
“Outside the Common Fisheries Policy we can take back control of our waters and revitalise our coastal communities.”
He is also on record as having said:
“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want.”
I intend to set out why the Bill and the current approach to negotiations being pursued by the Government will not, in our view, “revitalise” our left-behind coastal towns, which have been hit hard by years of Tory austerity. I will also set out why, having heard the Secretary of State outline his position just now, I am even more convinced that only a Labour Government can secure the twin goals of a healthy marine environment and thriving coastal communities.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Will the hon. Lady explain to me why my late husband suffered financially, quite considerably, for 12 years under a Labour Government, but she is now blaming Conservative austerity? I have witnessed it myself. Will she explain why she has not admitted that and apologised for it?
Sue Hayman
We know that coastal communities have suffered from austerity, and I will be talking about that further. However, I do not think it is appropriate to talk about individual cases.
However, having said what I have just said, we do not oppose the Bill at this stage, as it has turned out to be a mostly enabling Bill for making future decisions. It is clear that the Government have some way to go before we can all be satisfied with what is before us today. I hope that Ministers will reconsider parts of this legislation so that we can reach a consensus on the direction of travel. We intend to bring forward a number of key amendments in Committee to make those improvements.
In addition to looking at quotas, the Secretary of State also talked about the need to revitalise coastal communities, which have been badly let down by successive Tory Governments and the eight years of austerity. I represent a coastal community myself and have seen that damage at first hand. Those communities have been starved of investment. They have reduced services due to local government cuts, lower wages and stalled economies. If we look at the 98 local authorities that are on the coast, 85% of them have pay levels below the UK’s average, and, to date, the Government have done nothing to address that. Labour believes that well-managed fisheries and sustainable fishing practices can help reinvigorate many of these communities. This is a unique opportunity, as we have heard from the Secretary of State, to transform the way that we manage our fisheries to improve lives by driving economic prosperity, tourism and environmental benefits to our beautiful and unique British coastal areas.
However, if we look at the current distribution of quotas, it is clear that the system is not working in a fair or equitable way. According to research by Greenpeace, more than a quarter of the UK’s fishing quota is owned or controlled by just five families on the rich list of The Sunday Times. We are well-accustomed to hearing about taking our fair share of quota at the European level, but many in our coastal towns and smaller fleet want to know when they will get their fair share of the existing national quota.
The Secretary of State has talked about the unfairness in quotas, but the clear lack of proposals in the Bill to redistribute existing and future quota can be seen only as an endorsement of the current unfair system. Labour will bring in amendments to improve that situation. Given what the Secretary of State said earlier, will he support us in those amendments?
Recreational fishing also has an important role to play in the development of our coastal towns. The Angling Trust believes that many towns could prosper by attracting anglers who would travel right across the UK and from overseas to take advantage of top-class angling in healthy, well-managed waters.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She talks about quotas and about who holds quotas. I have actually written to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for an inquiry into who holds quotas, where they got the quota from and where a quota might be better distributed, including the idea of community quotas and the geographical share of quotas. Is she supportive of such an idea?
Sue Hayman
We are looking for the Government to address the historic imbalance and inequality in the fishing industry that these quotas show. The companies that we have looked at have benefited from a system that has led to a long-term consolidation of quota into the hands of a very few operators. We are very keen to look at ways in which that can be changed.
Gareth Thomas
May I take my hon. Friend back to the point that she was making about the impact of austerity on coastal communities? Does she not accept that, given the success of co-operatives, there might be an opportunity, through this Bill, to promote the co-operative sector in the fishing industry a little bit more, not least because one of the great things about co-operatives is that the surplus they generate stays within the local community?
Sue Hayman
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We would certainly support increasing co-operatives. I understand that there is an opportunity to double the number of co-operatives if we go about it in the right way. That was an incredibly important point.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Obviously, she is talking about coastal communities. Does she recognise—unfortunately, I was unable to make this point with the Secretary of State—that processors will not have a bonanza? If they are trapped having to pay 11% to 12% to land filleted and processed fish in Europe, but can land their fish directly to fish processors in Poland, harbours, markets, ice producers and processors will crumble. Certainly, the fishing associations on my coast do not support the Scottish Fishing Federation. The Clyde Fishermen’s Association and the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation are not happy with this notion that all Scottish fishermen support Brexit—they do not.
Sue Hayman
Yes, that is a very important point about processors. I have a processor in my own constituency, so I fully understand the hon. Lady’s concerns. We want to see more British fish landed in British ports.
Mr Charles Walker
The hon. Lady was starting to make a good case for recreational angling before she was dragged away by colleagues who wanted to talk about commercial landings. Recreational angling accounts for about £2 billion into the economy, whereas commercial fishing accounts for about £200 million. If we want to maximise the UK’s fish stocks, as I am sure that we do, we need to focus on recreational angling and the value of recreational angling, and we need to have fish species that are largely kept back for recreational anglers.
Sue Hayman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very well-made point. Yes, I support exactly what he is saying. We know that the Secretary of State also recognised in his speech the importance of recreational angling. If we are to achieve the goals that we are talking about, can the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to bring forward future measures to support recreational sea angling? If so, can he provide us with some details on those plans today?
Ministers, when questioned about their support for our smaller-scale fishing communities, often point to the coastal communities fund. Members may be interested to know that, in response to a parliamentary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), it was revealed that only about 6% of the fund has been awarded to the fishing sector to date. If the Government really think that fishing is the lifeblood of coastal communities, why do they not back this up with the funding that the industry so desperately needs?
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Lady with great interest, but I am finding it very difficult to reconcile the issue of fishing generally with the demise of coastal communities. Does she not agree that, just as in rural areas, it is not just the issues surrounding agriculture and fishing that contribute to a decline in coastal communities; it is tourism, lack of a manufacturing base and the brain drain? When we look in her own constituency, for example, any increase in the fishing industry will not help the village of Flimby, as it needs a greater package than just additional resources for the fishing industry, which she seems to be advocating.
Sue Hayman
Well, of course, any kind of regeneration needs to cover a number of different areas, but we know that fishing would regenerate many, many coastal communities if we were able to land more fish into British ports and if we were able to change quotas. The Secretary of State has said that we have a huge opportunity here to regenerate our coastal communities through investing in fishing, but, obviously, we must have other funding as well, which is why I mentioned earlier the importance of tourism.
Let me turn now to trade. I understand that around 80% of what we catch, we export, and that 70% of the fish that we eat, we import, yet in the Bill there is no mention of trade, customs or tariffs. Labour’s commitment to membership of a customs union would reassure both processors and catchers that they could invest in their industry safe in the knowledge that they would have tariff-free access to the European markets.
I want to talk briefly about the marine environment. Labour welcomes the language in the Bill about reducing the environmental impacts of fishing, but the Bill provides only a vague future framework and does little to explain exactly what this would look like.
Kate Hoey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the marine environment. She knows that the EU banned electric pulse fishing and then gave a 10-year derogation for Dutch boats—I think, 100 of them—to carry on with it. This really is ruining the ecosystem and the Bill does not ban it. Is this something that my hon. Friend might seek to put into the Bill in Committee?
Sue Hayman
Yes, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I can confirm that we will absolutely look at this matter in Committee.
We are asking for more detail about discard charges as well as the environmental and sustainability objectives around maximum sustainable yield fisheries management. Labour would go further on environmental protections than the provisions outlined in the Bill and would categorically oppose any move away from a science-led, ecosystems-based approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) mentioned, there is only a vague reference to MSY in the Bill, and no clear roadmap on when and how this can be achieved. We would like to know whether Ministers are still committed to it as we leave the EU. We believe that stocks should at least meet this standard by 2020 and will seek to bring that into the Bill if the Government do not.
Will the Secretary of State respond to the concerns of environmental groups such as Sustain that are worried that the Bill’s objective to gradually eliminate discards is far weaker and slower than the EU’s commitment to end discarding completely within a set deadline? This is an important point.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I think it would be reassuring to the House to know that the Opposition share our disdain for the common fisheries policy, which has allowed foreign potentates to devise a policy, paradoxically, that is simultaneously bad for fishermen and bad for fish. The Secretary of State set out his view about how we can improve on that. Presumably Labour would want to join us in condemning the CFP.
Sue Hayman
I am trying to make it clear that we are not opposing the Bill; we really do want to work with the Government to improve it and make it better for both the fishing industry and coastal communities.
Importantly, we have been told that environmental standards are not going to be weakened after Brexit. However, we are concerned that the Bill could allow the UK to fall behind where we would be as a member of the EU, so we want to ensure that this is tightened up and clear. On the international level, we would boost support for an ambitious new UN treaty for the high seas. The Government must stand up for our sea life by leading efforts for large-scale international protection—a goal that has been limited to date by the ineffectiveness of the existing regulatory framework. British diplomacy is vital to fill this gap, and I hope that Ministers are taking this very seriously.
As we leave the EU, it is right that we put in place the framework to ensure that any deal on fishing can be implemented, but, as have I said, we have concerns that the Bill falls short in a number of areas. There is no strategy to redistribute our existing quota so that the small-scale, often family-owned, boats can get a fairer slice of the pie. There is no provision for dealing with future trade uncertainty, nor any mention of customs or border arrangements. And despite the Secretary of State’s assurances, the Bill does not set out the full details on how we will manage our seas more responsibly. Without sustainable management of operations, there will be no fish and no fishing industry, so it is disappointing there is no commitment to getting stocks to a maximum sustainable yield by 2020.
What we are discussing today is fundamental to the future of British fishing, and it is crucial that we get the Bill right. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the real concerns that I have outlined. Earlier he mentioned the opportunity ahead of us to refine and improve the Bill. I would ask that he works constructively with the Opposition to make those improvements.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this fishing debate, and I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s speech. On this grey November day in this House, where we seem to have little to cheer us up at the moment, fishing is one of the things that we can cheer ourselves up with, because we now have the opportunity to get more fish, for our fishermen and under-10 metre fleet to have more quota, and for anglers to access more fish, which is another great economic opportunity. There will also be more fish for our processors to process.
The whole thing about bringing back control of our fishing is that we can actually put right the wrongs that happened about 40 years ago. There is no doubt—those of us in and around coastal constituencies know this full well—that if anybody suffered when we went into the then Common Market, it was our fishing industry. As we consider the Fisheries Bill, let us make sure that we right those wrongs and get our stocks back, and ensure that those who fish in our waters—if we allow them to do so—fish under our rules and regulations. Let us ensure that we have a sustainable fishing policy.
I very much welcome the fact that the fisheries White Paper says:
“Fisheries will be a separate strand of our future relationship with the EU.”
For far too long our fisheries have been controlled by the EU under the CFP, and for too long our fishermen have been managed as a single EU exclusive economic zone. The Bill gives us the framework to take control of our waters, to come out of the CFP and to become an independent coastal state. The UK alone will be responsible for our exclusive economic zone of some 200 miles or the median line. Now we need to make sure that the Bill works. However, it can be improved, and I welcome the fact that the Labour party is taking a positive view on the Bill, because it always helps when there is not too much of a great political divide across the House.
It is not clear to me what practical arrangements the Government have made for enforcement when foreign fishing boats have access to our waters, because there is no doubt—under a no-deal Brexit, or any other Brexit that we achieve—that we will need to ensure that we have control of our waters. We also have to ensure that the cameras and systems on the boats that monitor fishing are working and not being switched off. Those systems not only cover quantities of fish and who is fishing, but work very well as far as discards are concerned. If ever there was a benefit of coming out of the CFP, is it with regard to discards. Not only is it a huge waste of resource to throw back into the sea good, healthy fish, most of which will die and probably putrefy the sea bed, but it is important that we land all the fish that are caught, as that means that we can have a proper monitor of what is in the sea and what is being caught so that we know that the science is absolutely right. Those of us who have been involved in fishing for many years, as many Members have, will find that while the scientists say one thing, the fishermen will tell us that they could walk to America on the back of cod because there are so many in the sea. There may be a slight exaggeration, but I think that Members get the gist of my argument.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The root of the disjunction between science and the industry is the fact that the advice that is given is often based on data that are very old—almost two years old by the time they are used for decision making. Does he agree that in this brave new world of fisheries management, one of our first priorities ought to be the quick and dirty use of the data that are being harvested by the scientists?
Neil Parish
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention—he is right. I think that DEFRA is working much more with fishermen, and they will need to work more closely to ensure that the collection of that information happens more quickly. We also need to learn from the monitoring of how fish are caught and what is happening on the fishing boats, because all this is important. There needs to be trust between the fishermen and DEFRA officials, because that is sometimes lacking. There is a great deal that can be positive. I know that the Secretary of State and our Fisheries Minister are really driving towards that, and I think we can do it.
Richard Drax
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The point that is often ignored in fishing debates is that fish are born in one place, and then swim and live in another.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Fish will move, perhaps because of water temperature or where the food is. Also, of course, they do not always swim together. Cod swim together and haddock swim together, so we can go out and make sure that we catch only one species of fish, but other types of fish swim separately, and we will often catch many species. That is especially the case in the south-west waters, where we are very much a mixed fishery, and that is why the discards are so important. We do not want the fishermen to target particular species, but we want them to be able to catch fish and land it all. The challenge is going to be making sure that we recompense fishermen for delivering fish that they did not have the quota to catch, but do not stimulate them into catching fish that they perhaps should not be catching.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Does my hon. Friend welcome the study by one of the northern universities and CEFAS to look at zonal attachment as a way of assessing fish stocks within the United Kingdom 200 miles from the median line limit?
Neil Parish
As always, my hon. Friend speaks great sense on fishing, and so she should, given her knowledge of it. Zonal attachment is an interesting way of looking at this. When we are managing our own waters, we should be able to manage that much more quickly, so that an area that can be fished can be opened up, or if an area needs to be closed down, for reasons of the environment or fish breeding, we can do so much more quickly.
Dr Sarah Wollaston
Further to the point about zonal attachment, does my hon. Friend agree with Brixham fishermen that sprats would be an ideal kind of species to look at, because 90% of them are caught within the 12-mile limit but we have only 52% of the total allowable catch? Does he agree that that would be a much more sensible way to proceed?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. By moving to a different system, we perhaps remove ourselves from some of the existing quota restrictions. Because those are historical, and because we did not necessarily get a good deal—far from it—when we went into the common fisheries policy, we have the opportunity to do this.
Neil Parish
I think I am going to use up most of my time at this rate, but I give way.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend, who is being very generous with his time. He may or may not be aware that in 2015 Conservative MEPs tried to force the European Union to allow individual member states to use European fisheries funding to help fishing communities to implement the discard ban on the quayside. As we are now coming out of the CFP, will he join me in urging DEFRA and the devolved authorities to use the funding that they have to help to implement these new regulations on the quayside, because we are leaving it up to individual fishermen and organisations to do a lot of the work themselves, and some are working to very tight budgets?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about how we help these fishermen. Can a certain amount of help be given regarding the fuel needed to bring back the fish? What is the value of the fish when it is brought in? Is it going to be sold on the open market, and do we then put a super-levy on it so that bringing it back is not too attractive? These are some of the issues that I am sure that our Fisheries Minister and Secretary of State will deal with in due course, if not necessarily in the Bill.
Mr John Hayes
My hon. Friend is displaying that his grasp of fisheries is at least as great as his grasp of farming. As he develops this thesis, which is essentially about replacing discards and quotas with closed areas and other measures to preserve fish stocks, will he say a word about industrial fishing? While it is true that fishermen should be able to keep what they catch, industrial fishing sweeps the ocean floor, and the CFP has been singularly ineffective at dealing with its environmental consequences.
Neil Parish
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We were talking earlier about pulse fishing, which is used in particular by the Dutch. That causes huge damage to not only the seabed but, potentially, fish stocks. I often think that going out to fish should be much more a question of licking a finger to see which way the wind is blowing, but it does not work like that anymore. We use huge sonar equipment so that we know exactly where the fish are, and we can hoover them up in massive amounts. As we fish, we therefore have to be careful that we keep the stocks sustainable. I always say that the difference between fishing and farming is that with farming, we can at least replace the stock if we want to, but fish are a wild stock and must be bred in the sea, so we cannot take out too many fish if we want to keep the stock sustainable. Those are very good points.
You probably do not want me to go on for too much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will do my level best to move on quickly. We need more clarity in the Bill about the practical arrangements, which we have talked about a lot, and I look forward to seeing more detail. In particular, I am concerned that fisheries might get bogged down in unnecessary bureaucracy. Many of these companies are made up of five employees or fewer, so we must ensure that the burden of bureaucracy is as small as possible.
There are concerns that once we have left the EU, we will no longer have an automatic right to land fish in any EU ports. That interesting point has already been raised today. While I am very enthusiastic about our getting out of the common fisheries policy and getting back these stocks of fish, we have to ensure not only that we have access to EU markets, but that too much of our fish is not landed in EU ports, because we have to make the best of the processing. All these things are essential. I know that some of them are not covered in the detail of the Bill, but they need to be recommended.
I feel that we can do a much better job with our own Fisheries Bill and by taking back control of our waters. Our fishermen, fish processors and anglers can and must have a better deal. I am sure that the Secretary of State and Ministers are aware that there is a huge expectation that we are going to do much better as an independent coastal state than as part of the common fisheries policy. Let us welcome the Bill, make a few little alterations that might be necessary, and do a much better job than has been done in the past under the CFP.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I would like to start with a couple of points that arose from listening to the Secretary of State’s speech. First, he claimed that the SNP has not opposed the CFP and, in fact, wanted the UK to remain in the CFP. He clearly does not recall the Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill 2004, promoted by then Member Alex Salmond and signed by the right hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) and some Tory and Labour MPs.
Stewart Hosie
For the avoidance of doubt, that was a Bill designed to see the UK leave the CFP, in the name of the right hon. Alex Salmond, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), the late Eddie McGrady, Elfyn Llwyd and Tory and Labour MPs. Does that not rather make a mockery of what the Secretary of State said earlier and show what a tenuous grasp of reality he has?
Deidre Brock
It certainly points to some short memories in this place.
Secondly, in March, the Secretary of State said that the Government had accepted a sub-optimal outcome for fishing in the Brexit negotiations. Will he tell us whether he still thinks that is so, and whether that view is reflected in the Bill? I look forward to that being addressed in the Minister’s closing words.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Could the hon. Lady give us a history lesson about what a former Member of this House did? Does she agree with me that my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Moray, in the most recent general election campaign—[Interruption.] I notice she is getting a whisper from the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). In the general election campaign last year, when asked umpteen times on the BBC whether the Scottish National party would agree to go back into the CFP if Scotland became independent and wanted to get back into the EU, my predecessor said yes. The party’s sole aim is to go back into the CFP.
Deidre Brock
On our terms, of course. That is the point the hon. Gentleman is leaving out.
If we are looking for a history lesson, let us remind ourselves about the Tories, who have been selling out Scottish fishing for nearly half a century. Under Ted Heath in the 1970s, fisheries were considered expendable. In the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher, the UK Government signed us up to the original doomed common fisheries policy, which consigned our fishermen to decades of mismanagement. John Major’s Tories signed up to a revised common fisheries policy in the 1990s, which scrapped vessels and destroyed livelihoods. In the 21st century, the Tories were attempting to enshrine the common fisheries policy in European treaties, while the SNP was trying to return controls to the fishing nations. Let us not forget that, very recently, Ruth Davidson was reported in The Times as calling fisheries a red line issue, and a Scottish Tory source was quoted as saying:
“We won a lot of votes in the northeast on the back of our stance on fishing and wouldn’t be able to show our faces in Banff and Buchan if we renege on this one.”
Pete Wishart
Does my hon. Friend not agree with me that the Scottish Tory MPs have made 20-gallon galoots of themselves with their resigning/non-resigning nonsense? I do not know if she knows exactly where they are just now, but are they going to be in or oot when all this has concluded?
Deidre Brock
I am as baffled as my hon. Friend on that particular issue; that is for sure.
Returning to my speech, I think the context of this Bill has changed somewhat as a result of the withdrawal agreement. Some of the content of that agreement makes some of the apparent intent of the Bill a little more difficult to deliver and more dependent on negotiation and agreement with the 27 remaining members of the EU.
Having said that, let me pay tribute to the EFRA Secretary for staying the course and being determined to see things through to their conclusion. That seems to be a principle or a staying power that is somewhat lacking in his colleagues—erstwhile colleagues, I should say. They may have fallen by the wayside, weary of the march, but he carries on indefatigably. I understand that his father, as he mentioned, was involved in the onshore side of the industry, so he certainly comes to the Bill with some knowledge, but with a rather poor recall of facts if the newspapers are to be believed.
I acknowledge that the Secretary of State comes to the table with a backstory—if not a backstop—but that does not mean that he necessarily comes with the solutions the industry needs. The withdrawal agreement that was greeted with such delight by Government Members keeps our fishing industry in the common fisheries policy for a further two years after Brexit day, although of course our lack of membership means that the EU will decide the rules, while we have no say in them, no say in how they should be implemented and no voice in the discussions about whether the CFP is meeting its policy objectives.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Obviously, the SNP has persistently voted against the common fisheries policy in the European Parliament, as the records show, as well as in this Parliament. My other point is: has the Secretary of State given her any reassurances about the customs union, which is critical for this excellent produce to get to its markets on the European continent?
Deidre Brock
Absolutely not, no. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope he has jogged the Secretary of State’s memory a little with his first point.
Mr Charles Walker
May I mount a bit of shameless lobbying? To tackle illegal lobster potting, the Scottish Government have put a limit on recreational lobster fishermen, such as myself, of one lobster landing a day on the west coast of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who represents Barra, will know, it is often very difficult to get your boat out more than once every four or five days. Will the hon. Lady ask the Scottish Government whether, instead of putting on a limit of one lobster a day, they will look at a limit on the number of pots a recreational fisherman can have—say, five or six—beyond which they would need to get a licence?
Deidre Brock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am certain that the Scottish Government will be closely following the debate and that they will make a note of his request.
If the steady stream of Ministers heading for the exit delays negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU, we could find ourselves in an extended period where our fishing industry just complies with the rules, rather than having someone in the room standing up for it. Mr Barnier has already suggested that it will last for at least two years, which could be an underestimate if we consider how long it took to reach the much simpler withdrawal agreement.
We may have to suffer the CFP for quite a few years to come and it may change to the advantage of the remaining members of the EU, and not to ours. We may lose markets to sell fish into, or at the very least, find that our competitive advantage disappears because we will be subject to the same tariffs as other non-member states. I hope they will be the same tariffs, but going by the poor negotiation results that we have seen so far, we may end up with higher tariffs that reduce our fleet’s traditional competitive advantage.
It will not come to that, of course, because the new fishing deal has already been written into the withdrawal agreement by the departing Brexit Secretary. On page 4, the political declaration tells us that he has agreed to a new fisheries agreement with access to UK waters and assigned quota shares being
“in place in time to be used for determining fishing opportunities for the first year after the transition period.”
That means the common fisheries policy will carry on regulating our fishing fleets after we have left the EU. Taking back control has never sounded so hollow.
It is a sad state of affairs for this Secretary of State to have to deliver that news, because in March he said that he feels a
“debt to fishing communities who are looking to government to deliver a better deal for them”
and promised that he would ensure that our
“fishermen’s interests are properly safeguarded”
during the implementation period. That period starts on 29 March and lasts for an indeterminate amount of time, during which access to some important markets might be limited. France, for example, is the UK’s most important export market for fish. It is nearly twice as lucrative in cash terms as the US, and almost three times as strong in export volumes. Spain, by the way, is just behind the US in cash terms and slightly ahead in volume. Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany are all significant customers for our fishing fleets. Two thirds of our fleet’s fish is exported—perhaps a case of EU citizens jumping the queue to buy fish.
Once the deals are done and we finally leave the CFP, however, we will still be in it. It is a conjuror’s trick, and not a good one. Last year, the Secretary of State spoke to leaders of the Danish industry and guaranteed them continued access to our waters after Brexit. Earlier this year, the UK embassy in Spain reassured Spanish trawlers that their access to UK waters was assured. The withdrawal agreement replaces common decision-making on the CFP as a member of the EU with CFP rules handed down from Brussels and no input from Ministers from these isles on behalf of the industry here. Well done to the Brexiteers—they certainly landed a whopper there.
The Norwegians sometimes describe their relationship with the EU as a “fax democracy”, because the rules just come down the line from Brussels. That seems to be what removing ourselves from the EU will do, except, of course, that the European maritime and fisheries fund money will vanish. We have heard nothing about what might replace that in due course.
We will be left to accept the rules that are handed down; we will lose access to the decision-making body and the funding from the EU; and we will have to deal with the consequences of the Government’s poor negotiation techniques and the uniquely weak position that they have left us in. When the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave evidence to the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee 26 months ago, he said that
“we have to recognise historic rights…In some sectors, for instance on scallops, access to the French part of the channel is quite important to the UK industry. I accept there are trade-offs. All these things will be a matter for negotiation in a new world.”
During the referendum campaign, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
“I think the fishermen are wrong in the sense there is no way we would just go back to Scotland or Britain controlling British waters. There are a whole host of international rules and agreements even if we were outside the EU which would impact on their activities.”
Then of course there is the same problem agriculture has in relation to workforce planning. We will lose access to EU workers, who make up 58% of Scotland’s fish processing workforce and 70% in Grampian, where the Secretary of State’s family business was based.
Scotland’s seafood and fishing industries could be destroyed without access to EU markets. Scotland’s processing industry could be irreversibly damaged without access to EU workers. We also have to consider Scottish farmed salmon, the UK’s most valuable food export, and how losing the market advantage over Norwegian salmon that EU membership gives us could be utterly devastating. Scotland stands to lose a lot without access and there is little indication of how any of it might be replaced.
Dr Philippa Whitford
Fishermen in the north-east are often quoted as saying that more fish will be consumed in the UK, rather than exported. In my constituency, however, the south-west Scotland market consists of nephrops, crustaceans, langoustine and lobster. Some 85% are exported to the European market. It might well be that we all eat a little bit more white fish after Brexit, but I cannot see anybody being in a financial situation where they are going to be eating more lobster.
Deidre Brock
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I am delighted that she brings up the interests of the south-west part of the country.
Once more, Scotland’s needs are massively different to the needs of England. Once more, we cannot have the Scottish industry locked into a rigid framework that will satisfy the English industry. Fishing, of course, has been a devolved matter since 1999 and the responsibility for nearly all the policy area rests in Edinburgh. I think the Government acknowledge as much, with the legislative consent motion they have asked for at Holyrood.
The industry cannot be squeezed into the same box as the English industry, but I appreciate the desirability of common frameworks to allow co-operative working on various issues—kind of like the EU managed with the CFP. Where such frameworks are sought and agreed by both sides they will be mutually beneficial, but they cannot be imposed. They must recognise the devolution settlement and respect it. There must be an element of trust that runs between Whitehall and Holyrood. Her Majesty’s Government must allow Scotland’s Government to govern in the devolved areas and this Parliament must allow Scotland’s Parliament to legislate in devolved areas.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
This is a characteristically divisive speech from the hon. Lady. On the subject of division, can she explain how, under Scottish National party policy, Scotland will be better served when it has to go into negotiation with England for access to its waters, and how Scotland would somehow get a better result under the SNP policy when it has to negotiate with Europe alone and trade with an even smaller WTO box?
Deidre Brock
I am always amused when Scottish Tories stand up to talk about divisiveness and accuse the SNP of being divisive about anything.
Returning to a more serious subject, in general the provisions in the Bill that relate to this area seem to fit those provisions, and, while I reserve the right to check that I am correct in thinking that, I welcome the drafting of the Bill in this respect.
I cannot offer the same welcome to some other aspects of the Bill, such as the setting of quotas. Quotas for Scotland’s waters should be set in Scotland, just as quotas for English waters should be set in England and Welsh waters in Wales. That is devolution. I am sure the Minister or any Government Members would not want the Scots and the Welsh to set quotas in Cornwall, so they will understand why Scots would not want our effort limits set here. The same applies to foreign vessels in our waters. We know that the Secretary of State has been a little free with his pledges of access to our waters, but it should more appropriately be the devolved Administrations that determine such things.
The principle upon which devolution was determined, the division of responsibilities and powers, was that anything which was not reserved was devolved. Power does not flow from here to there, but is, rather, only held here where it is written in the devolution legislation. Matters determined on an EU platform but not written into schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 are devolved and should go straight to Holyrood. They will go straight to Holyrood unless there is some power grab, some clawing back of responsibility, some deliberate diminution of Scotland’s Parliament. That would be unthinkable and we should do our level best to ensure that we do not legislate across that boundary.
Let us endeavour to ensure that we can modify the Bill appropriately so that we do not overcomplicate what should be a simple process. Let us make sure that the responsibilities and powers over our fishing waters and industries rest in the most appropriate places: the devolved Administrations for the most part, and this place, when there is no choice.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock)—it is always good news when she finishes. In a competitive field, fishing is a clear winner of the stakes of the area in which the EU has shown maximum incompetence and caused maximum damage. I was made the shadow Fisheries Minister a long time ago, way back in 2004. I travelled all around the coast of the United Kingdom, down to South East Cornwall and up to Whalsay in Orkney and Shetland. I also went right across from east to west, seeing really successful fisheries in Norway, the Faroes, Iceland, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and down the coast of the United States, and I went to the Falklands. My conclusion, which I do not resile from, is that the common fisheries policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster. It is beyond reform, and I do not resile from a single word of my Green Paper, written back in January 2005.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
On the common fisheries policy, just in case the right hon. Gentleman should be tempted to try to rewrite history, I hope that he acknowledges that despite all the bluster that we are hearing from Government Members about the CFP, the Conservative party’s fingerprints are all over it. The Conservative party was compliant in its creation and has been actively implementing the CFP for the past 40 years. Will he acknowledge his party’s role in implementing it for the past four decades?
Mr Paterson
I remind the hon. Gentleman that this Green Paper was the policy on which we fought the 2005 general election, and his party opposed it. I will have no more humbug from the Scottish National party. We are sick to death of hearing from a party that supports the EU and then tries to weasel around on the CFP. The fishermen listening to this debate will be sick to death of this petty party political bickering. We have seen catastrophic damage to our most remote coastal communities, which could really benefit from a wonderful resource. We are world leaders in this area, yet we have allowed foreign fishermen to come in and take that resource. This resource could be a massive benefit to some of our most remote rural communities. We currently only take £900 million. That could go up to £1.5 billion to £2 billion, and if we processed the fish we could be talking about a £6 billion to £8 billion boost. That is a massively disproportionate benefit considering the remoteness of many of these rural communities.
Mr John Hayes
My right hon. Friend has highlighted the role that he played as shadow Fisheries Minister, and he did a great job. I was his predecessor in that job, and throughout the period that he described, the Conservative party was resolutely and entirely convincingly—to most people at least—hostile to the CFP, when parties sitting opposite had not woken up to the problem. The Conservative party has opposed the CFP consistently; other parties have failed to wake up and see the writing on the wall.
Mr Paterson
Let us move on to what we proposed in that Green Paper, on which we fought the 2005 election. There are a whole range of points, and looking at the clock, I see that I do not have time to go through them all now, but one is absolutely key.
First, there is the insane hostility of the European Union to modern technology. In Manomet in Massachusetts, I saw really interesting work on selective gear, but when I went back to Kilkeel, I found that that was being stopped by EU regulations. That is something that we really should look at.
The other issue is the insanity of discards. What is wicked is trying to fix a really local activity at a continental level. Someone mentioned that the data on which the European Union makes its annual decisions is guaranteed to be completely inaccurate because of discards and is probably six months to two years out of date. We do not know the level of discards—it is thought to be possibly 25%. It is absolutely disgraceful.
I remember going out on a trawler from Fleetwood and seeing baby plaice being cast back, because the mesh sizes were wrong. I went with the Secretary of State to North Shields not long ago. We saw baskets of whiting—completely healthy fish—that had to be cast back. I remember during the referendum campaign going to Looe with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who is a witness to the terrible suffering in the fishing industry when people cannot afford enough labour—her husband died because he was alone on a boat. We should not forget that. We saw on the harbour wall a drawing for tourists of lots of different fish, but the one fish that was not there was haddock, and what is the problem off the coast? Her constituents are catching masses of haddock, because the fish have moved, but they have to be cast back. It is absolute insanity to have a bycatch problem and to address the discards without addressing the cause of it, which is the quota system.
I learned a clear lesson in the Faroes. The situation has been modified since, using techniques such a catch composition, but I ask the Minister to promise that we will do some pilots around the coast on catch composition-based effort control, because it means working with the grain of nature. It was mandatory in the Faroes to land everything. The Fisheries Minister there said, “You may not like what you find, but at least you know what’s going on.” Our scientists do not know what is going on because we discard so much. Technology has advanced enormously, as I saw at Succorfish in North Shields, which used modern equipment to track not just the boats, but soak times, catches, and so on. If we did this using modern technology, we could monitor every single fishing boat every hour. Every fishing boat would become a scientific vessel sending back data.
I saw that in Iceland years ago now. Fisheries management there would send out radio signals, and boats around Iceland would be told to move on because there were too many discards. Way back then, the UK was doing it in the Falklands—the same management based on accurate, instant data. I appeal to the Minister. I am not thrilled with clause 23 on discard prevention charging schemes—those will be good, healthy fish that should be sold to consumers. We should work out pilot schemes for mixed fisheries. I admit that Scotland is different—pelagic fisheries probably need a quota system—but I really make that appeal.
Probably the most important issue is whether we really will take back control. That was the promise in the referendum and in our manifesto, in which we made it clear that we would take back control:
“When we leave the European Union and its Common Fisheries Policy, we will be fully responsible for the access and management of the waters where we have historically exercised sovereign control.”
I would like the Minister to address this point. He is being bombarded with a helter-skelter of questions, but I ask that he take careful note of article 56 of the UN convention on the law of the sea, relating to exclusive economic zones—as he knows, those are 200 miles or the median line. Article 56(1) reads:
“In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has…sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil”.
Can the Minister absolutely guarantee that every decision affecting our marine environment, as well as that which lives in it and that which is extracted from it, will ultimately be decided by sovereign UK politicians who come to this Dispatch Box and answer to this House? Can he think of any circumstances after we have left the CFP—I would like him to tell us exactly when that will be—in which decisions would be imposed on our fishermen that ideally our politicians would like to resist? That is the nub of the CFP.
The most shocking mismanagement has been imposed on this wonderful industry and these incredibly brave people because we have always been outvoted. When I was Secretary of State—we have discussed this in respect of the common agricultural policy, too—my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has just left his place, bravely did his best, but we were outvoted. I want an absolute guarantee that article 56(1) of UNCLOS will prevail and that the Minister will be able to come back and be answerable to every one of us for fishing decisions. There must be no circumstances in which appalling decisions can be imposed on us once we have left. That cannot happen. If it does, we will have let down the 17.4 million, as well as the 16.3 million who voted for us in the general election, and all those Labour voters—do not forget the 85% who voted in the general election to take back control. Can he please guarantee that?
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson).
I speak as a former shadow Fisheries Minister, a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and someone who—as some Members who are present already know—grew up in Grimsby. I remember it as a bustling fishing port when I was a girl; moreover, it was the biggest in the world at that time. I remember the numerous trawlers in the docks, and the sense of pride among workers who were doing something that they knew was incredibly important: providing the nation with one of its favourite foods.
However, I also remember the decline that followed the so-called final cod war with Iceland. The devastation that it wreaked both economically and socially was vivid. I was a teenager at the time, but I remember areas, particularly around the docks—such as Freeman Street and East Marsh—suffering disastrous consequences. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) will refer to that later. Gone, too, are many of the food processing plants that lined Ladysmith Road. Findus has gone. Birds Eye has gone, no longer anchored by the town’s status as one of the greatest food towns in Europe.
It is my witness of this decline, and the fact that my father was, for a period, a deep-sea fisherman—fishing off the coast of Iceland, at Reykjavik—that gives me an understanding of why our coastal towns and fishing communities matter more than their contribution to our national GDP would suggest. At this point, I want to pay tribute to all those who died serving the fishing industry. In Grimsby, every time a trawler went down or men were washed overboard—that was the commonest cause of death—the children in their primary schools would repeat the “Fisherman’s Prayer” and sing “The Fisherman’s Hymn”. It was all too common, particularly in the 1950s, for those children to have to sing that hymn and say that prayer.
Let me now deal with the Bill. I have a number of concerns about it. First, the Government’s stated aspiration is to develop “world leading fisheries”. Clause 1 sets out how this would be developed, including objectives such as creating a sustainable industry. We would all support that, but, unfortunately, the light-touch duties placed on the authorities potentially undermine the delivery of those aspirations. For example, while the Bill rightly contains an ambitious objective to ensure that all harvested stocks are recovered to, or maintained at, a biomass above that capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, the Bill places no duty on regulatory authorities to ensure that fishing pressure is managed in a way that delivers on that objective.
We have to ask whether the Government are really committed to restoring stocks, or whether they will put political pressures first, at the expense of the science and the data available. There is a history of those pressures leading to that kind of over-exploitation of our stocks, not just in our waters, but throughout the waters of the European Union.
Secondly, there are concerns in relation to our marine environmental regulations. The fisheries White Paper acknowledged concerns about a possible “governance gap” which could threaten accountability for the implementation of the regulations. It also suggested— as have consultations on the proposed environmental principles and governance Bill—that a new independent environmental regulator should have a role in relation to the marine environment. As things stand, this Bill is opaque about how the forthcoming environment Bill will protect our marine environment and how the “governance gap” will be closed. Clarifications of those issues would be welcome as the Bill proceeds, and I hope that the Minister will comment on them when he winds up the debate.
Clause 28 will give new powers to introduce financial schemes to promote sustainable growth and to improve the marine and aquatic environment. They will replace existing powers and allow new funding schemes to replace funding currently received under the European maritime and fisheries fund. However, as the clause is currently drafted, those grant-making powers do not reference clause 1’s sustainability objectives, such as an ecosystem-based approach. That strikes me as rather strange and concerning, and, again, I would welcome clarification. I understand that the fisheries statement will reference clause 1 and the powers will come under the remit of the statement, but clarification would be welcome.
My final point relates to the very important fact that the fishing industry is not just about the catching side; there is still a very important processing and aquaculture industry alongside it, most of which, unsurprisingly, is based in or nearby fish-landing towns such as Grimsby and Immingham. Indeed, 21% of the industry is in Yorkshire and the Humber. It is an important provider of jobs in those areas, and for my home town of Grimsby, it is still an important source of employment, with some 4,200 jobs dependent on the sector. These processing plants also export much of their product into the EU, in a market worth £1.3 billion, where we still enjoy a trade surplus. It is therefore vital in the drive to create world-leading fisheries that processing is not forgotten, as so far it has been in this debate. Full tariff-free access to the single market must be retained for the industry.
Mr John Hayes
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about processing, and it also requires concentration on productivity, investment in technology and making sure our processing industry is as competitive as possible. I hope that can be debated during our deliberations on the Bill and included in the Government’s objectives.
Angela Smith
I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Grimsby makes some of the very best premium products in the world. One of the local fish-finger producing plants can take the fish from the moment it has landed at Immingham and have it in the lorry going to the supermarket in six hours. One of the reasons why that is possible, and why the time from the moment of departure from Iceland to getting the product in the shops is concertinaed into a minimum, is the single market. That fish is as fresh as possible and those products are as good as they are because the single market has made it possible to ensure guaranteed standards while at the same time maximising productivity.
Angela Smith
I am not going to give way again as many Members wish to speak.
Any failure to secure access to the single market, such as by sacrificing our access to the market in return for keeping access to our waters broadly to ourselves, will represent a betrayal and could decimate processing in areas where the jobs and economic activity it provides are vital. I am convinced that the processing side of the industry, which accounts for 64% of the employment in the sector, will not want its interests to be sacrificed on the grounds that we will give no, or very limited, access to our waters to foreign vessels.
We now have a withdrawal agreement on the table alongside the political statement, giving something of an indication of the direction of travel. This political statement, however, gives only the faintest glimmer of what will happen after the transition period, which is not good enough, particularly so far as fisheries are concerned. It is also true that this Bill, like the Agriculture Bill, is enabling and contains a number of Henry VIII powers. Like others in this Chamber, I worry about the use of this mechanism given the lack of effective parliamentary scrutiny that accompanies the use of statutory instruments. I therefore hope the Government will think more carefully about this Bill and allow it to be amended to ensure it gives greater clarity on the direction of travel of our fishing industry.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
First, I want to thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for her tribute to the bereaved families of fishermen, and I also want to put on record my grateful thanks to the Secretary of State. My family would also like me to say thank you. I would also like to pay tribute to the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen and to the rescue services who go out in all weathers to ensure that our fishermen are safe.
The Bill provides the legal framework for the UK to operate under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea after we have left the European Union on 29 March 2019, something that my late husband and I worked towards since the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, it is important to look at the wider matter of the terms of our exit from the European Union and at the political declaration that the Prime Minister is in Brussels talking about now. I know that the terms will be a cause of concern for many of my constituents and for the fishing industry throughout the UK.
It is no secret that many people feel that the UK’s rich fishing resources were sacrificed when we joined the European Economic Community. Agreeing to the principle of equal access to a common resource—the total EU pond—at the time was in my opinion a dereliction of duty by the then Conservative Government, and I would like personally to apologise, even though I was not a Member of this House in 1972. Indeed, I was not even old enough to vote. It was a dereliction of duty, and the disastrous permanent share-out of the catch for each species in UK waters from January 1983 has left the UK fishing industry a shadow of its former self. An example is that of channel cod, of which the UK is permitted to catch 9% a year while France takes about 80%. We now face a situation in which other EU vessels take five times more in monetary value from the UK exclusive economic zone than UK vessels take from all the other EU EEZs. I have to say to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge that the massive value of that fish could benefit the economy of the United Kingdom, but at the moment it is just being given away, with other member states coming in, catching and taking away. There is no benefit to us in that arrangement.
On the morning of 14 November, it was reported that Sabine Weyand—Michel Barnier’s deputy who leads the EU’s negotiations at a technical level—said that the UK would be forced to concede on fisheries as part of the withdrawal agreement, meaning that Britain would have to
“swallow a link between access to products and fisheries in future agreements”.
The French are leading a group of other member states in demanding a link between access to waters and a trade deal. Lots of reports have shown this, but we must not accept such a link. That would be a complete repeat of what happened in 1971 when the UK Government caved in at the last minute and allowed equal access to a common resource.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I should like to associate myself with my hon. Friend’s comments in paying tribute to the various associations and organisations that support our fishermen. Does she agree that there is no precedent anywhere for access to a third country’s natural resources forming part of a trade agreement?
Mrs Murray
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. In relation to Norway and the EU, access to resources is negotiated on an annual basis and Norway has tariffs attached to its fish. There is no link there, and it is completely wrong for people to say otherwise.
I see that my Cornish colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), is in his place. I was going to ask the Secretary of State this question, but I shall ask my hon. Friend instead. Will he please ask the Secretary of State to categorically reaffirm that British fish will not be used to buy a trade deal with the EU? Will he also ensure that only the fish that United Kingdom vessels—I do mean United Kingdom vessels, because Scottish vessels will benefit from this as well, as will those from Wales and Northern Ireland—cannot catch will be made available to other nations? Can he also assure me that, because the catch levels of the UK fleet have been artificially deflated since 1983, allowance will be made for UK fishermen to realise their total catching capacity?
The NFFO would like the Government to establish a formal advisory council to guide policy, promote collaboration between central Government, the devolved Administrations and the industry, and allow an ongoing dialogue in what is a naturally variable industry. An advisory council could play a leading role in the use of secondary legislation to ensure an agile and responsive approach to fisheries management.
It is understandable that the Bill refers to maximum sustainable yield as an approach to sustainable fisheries management. However, if maximum sustainable yield is set as a rigid, time-bound objective, it will prove unworkable. We have seen that happen time and again, and the CFP is the prime example. Setting quotas for sustainable fisheries management in mixed fisheries must take into account a number of different, and sometimes competing, factors. In an earlier intervention, I mentioned zonal attachment, which is an important new way of looking at fisheries management and the assessment of stocks.
Where agreement between fisheries administrations cannot be reached, some sort of approach is needed that allows appeal. It would be useful if the Minister considered putting in place a dispute resolution system that would not impact on fisheries.
I have a few asks for the Minister. Will he look at clause 42, particularly subsections (3) and (5). We need a date for when the provisions come into force, because the fishing industry needs to be able to plan. It has accepted that the implementation period will not end until 31 December 2020, but it would be reassured if we inserted the words “no later than 31 December 2020” into those two subsections.
To sum up, setting aside the complex and controversial questions surrounding parliamentary approval for the withdrawal agreement, much still hinges on the negotiations ahead. The UK’s legal status has altered and its leverage in fisheries negotiations has changed dramatically, but unless that new status is used to address the distortions in quota shares, fishermen will question what it has all been for. English fishermen in the channel have struggled with a 9% share of the cod quota, compared with France’s 84% share—it has been exactly the same for haddock, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) mentioned.
To deliver the fair share of fishing opportunities that they rightly see as theirs, British fishermen, in this second round, will expect our negotiators to be as tough, astute and hard-nosed as they need to be to realise the benefits of our new status as an independent coastal state. I really hope that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have got that message from fishermen today.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population and 60% of the total catch, so fisheries are hugely important to ports such as Fraserburgh on the east coast, Lerwick in the north, Kinlochbervie in the west and, of course, on my own islands on the west coast. Fishing News, a great newspaper to read at the weekend in my constituency, had an article this week stating that the annual turnover of UK fisheries has hit £1 billion for the first time, which is remarkable. Fisheries are about 0.5% of UK GDP.
As Chair of the International Trade Committee, I am often told that sectors bigger than fisheries do not get the same attention, but in coastal communities we know why fisheries get such attention. They are integral to the lives we lead and to the people we know. Indeed, the Secretary of State mentioned the lives lost at sea in his opening remarks, and I personally know people who have lost their lives at sea working as fishermen.
I worked as a fisherman a number of years ago, although not for long, over the summer, which is the right time of year to work in fisheries. I have always had sympathy for the guys who fish all year round. Fisheries are vital, and it is vital that we get this right. We know things have been wrong in the past, and there is a lot of expectation management happening at the moment—and it probably needs to happen.
The largest fishery organisation by membership in Scotland, the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association, has flagged a number of things as important and, as the MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, it is right that I repeat them. Those with Facebook friends in the Hebrides will know that at the weekend a large bluefin tuna washed ashore on a beach in Tolsta, on the east coast of Lewis. Bluefin tuna are all around. Indeed, Angus Campbell from Harris was in touch yesterday with a tag of a bluefin tuna that was found around Scarista in the west of Harris, and he regularly comes across shoals of bluefin tuna on his trips to St Kilda.
We expect to see a trebling of the allowable catch of bluefin tuna to 38,000 tonnes, and we are now seeing a lot of tuna in our waters, now seemingly all year round if a bluefin tuna has washed up in Tolsta in November, so our big ask—or our moderate ask—is that we have access to that allowable catch, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, both for catch and release for sporting use and for catch and sale. If the allowable catch is increasing threefold, surely one of the benefits we might see from this upheaval is that we have such access, because bluefin tuna are becoming increasingly plentiful in our waters.
The Western Isles Fishermen’s Association, through its excellent secretary Duncan MacInnes, has done a power of work over the past few years, and it raises a number of areas of concern. There is a concern about the over-10 metre fleet. The Highlands and Islands development board, which some will remember from years past, gave grants for an awful lot of vessels to be built, and some of those vessels are still catching and still contributing. There is a need to upgrade, to reinstate and to reconsider how exactly we retool and re-equip coastal communities to make sure they are ready to catch.
Western Isles Council runs a loan scheme in conjunction with the banks, and it has a very low failure rate, but we are looking for the Government to introduce a business loan guarantee scheme to assist the fishing industry, with similar terms to those offered in other industries.
The Western Isles Fishermen’s Association also refers to access to quota opportunities, and it notes that in the last 40 years the fleet has reduced from 273 vessels to 220, and the number of fishermen is down from 499 to 377. In addition, whereas pelagic and whitefish landings used to account for 97.5% by volume and 73% by value in 1973, the position now is that shellfish account for 96% by volume and 90% by value.
An Eriskay fisherman once told me, “I can remember a time when I sold off my rights to fish mackerel and herring to 20 boats and to 50 families on the east coast of Scotland.” I have written to the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ask that the Committee looks into who holds the quota, where they got the quota from and whether the quota might be better distributed and, of course, that it considers the idea of community and geographical quotas. Community quotas have worked very well indeed in other areas.
A prickly area that has not been properly touched on is seal management. I cannot resile from mentioning the volume of seals and the amount of fish they are taking. There is a colony of about 30,000 seals around the Monach islands, west of Uist. The annual consumption is 2.5 tonnes per seal, so an estimated 75,000 tonnes of fish are being eaten. A very conservative estimate of the value of that fish is about £1,000 per tonne, so we are talking about some £75 million of fish. I put this suggestion out there for people to ponder, but we could have a seal management plan that might involve something like contraceptive darts to limit the number of seals, because their numbers are out of balance with the marine environment. Perhaps a lack of killer whales is our concern and an issue in that area.
I mentioned the spurdog to the Secretary of State—he looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights and I had to say the word twice. The spurdog is a dogfish with a particular spur on its dorsal fin. It is often caught in bycatches at the moment; it cannot be landed and cannot be used. Fishermen have sent me photographs of 20 or 100 boxes of spurdog that they have caught. In this winter period—probably from about now until March—spurdog will regularly turn up in the nets. At one point when I was fishing, they were not great to spot with sonar—because of the lack of a swim bladder—although that might be different now, but they are certainly ending up in nets by accident. They are a nuisance to clear and fishermen cannot land them, despite their having value in other countries, so let us make sure something happens on this issue of spurdog.
One thing I want to mention is the expectation management that will probably be required. I can see from Government Members that Brexit will never be great for Brexiteers who have envisaged Brexit in a slightly different form, but in Iceland there has been a change in fisheries. Some 80 or 90 years ago, 24% or 25% of the Icelandic population were involved in fisheries, but now the figure is about 4%, and that is due to technology. Iceland wants to see fewer people involved in fisheries. The fishing concern HB Grandi, which is based in Reykjavik, wants to see itself with even fewer fishing boats than at present, such is the way technology is moving. Its fishing boats are very different from those we see; they are about the size of car ferries, and on board there are hot tubs and so on.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I see nods of knowledge from one Conservative Member.
Similarly, the Faroe Islands has managed to change a number of things. It recently introduced a concept in law under the Fisheries Minister, Høgni Hoydal, who was mentioned by the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), whereby the fish that swim in Faroese waters are the property of the Faroese people. The idea of fish being the property of the people of the relevant jurisdictions might be a useful thing for our jurisdictions in the United Kingdom.
I come on to one of the big things in fisheries. I received a text message before I got up to speak from Donald Joseph Maclean at Barratlantic, who is a first cousin once removed of mine, asking whether there is any movement on the EEA fishermen and getting guys on boats. We have been talking all summer to the Secretary of State and to the Home Office, but where the UK has got control it has done nothing. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I all went to the Home Office to ask for this in May or June, but nothing has happened. We have lost a lot of money this summer because the Home Office, where the UK Government have control, has not taken its hands out of its pockets to help fisheries. Indeed, I was told in the Home Office, “Angus, it is our Conservative manifesto on one hand and the economy on the other.” What is the answer? It is the economy, surely. But no, months later, nothing has been done, and that is absolutely negligent. I hope that if Donald Joseph Maclean is watching, this will at least help his blood pressure on this issue, because it is fair near bursting at times.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about UK Government support for the fishing industry. Will he welcome their support in the recent Budget of £12 million that will support our fishing communities across our United Kingdom as we leave the EU?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
If we look at where this is going, we see that it is not going to be the headline figure the hon. Lady states. I hope that she wants the UK Government to replace absolutely any loss of subsidy and grants from the EU, because that is going to be a big concern of fishermen. As a young fisherman in Castlebay told me, “I am lucky: I have got a fishing boat, through help from the European Union. Will that remain afterwards?” I said, “The Tories are in charge. I cannot guarantee that one at all.”
We have to think about our access to markets as well, and we have to be worried about a sell-out. We need to remember that when David Cameron went to Europe to try to find concessions, fisheries were nowhere near where he or the Conservatives were looking—not a cheep was heard. It was all about migrants but, as I have just said, we need migrants. We need people who come to help us on our boats and who work in our communities—they are very important. If one thing comes out from this debate, it should be that the Scottish National party has a big welcome for people who want to come and work in Scotland. We would have more people. My community wants them; my Government want them; my local council wants them; my local processing sector wants them; and my local fishing boats want them. Only one office in London—the Home Office—is stopping people from coming, to the economic detriment of my community.
We should think of the patriotism that crops up in fisheries debates. Let us have some patriotism in landings as well. We must also think about aquaculture and about salmon, which accounts for a huge part of our industry. We have to be sure that nothing is stopped at borders. Once, at Prime Minister’s questions, I asked the Prime Minister about shellfish exports being stopped on lorries—she, too, was like a rabbit in the headlights. She did not quite understand that the catch goes live to France and Spain, because they pay the top prices. If we do not get to those markets, we will not replace them in the United Kingdom, because people here will not pay the price that is paid elsewhere for crab and shellfish, so we will see a loss. The £1 billion that I mentioned earlier would be lost and would not be as large an amount in subsequent years. The Government who are treading this path have a real responsibility. For years they ran along with the common fisheries policy and did not take anything on board, but now they take a different tack. We are watching what they are doing very closely, and we will watch them with a beady eye in the years to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Members have not been too bad at sticking to the time limit suggested earlier, but as the House can see, a great many people still wish to speak. I would like to try to impose a voluntary time limit of six minutes. [Interruption.] I appreciate that this is a bit of a surprise for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who has much to say on this subject, so I shall not hold him to six minutes, but everyone else is now warned.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that, as I had already tried to pare down my speech to the 10 minutes suggested earlier.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Na h -Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). As he mentioned, he, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who unusually is not in the Chamber, and I have the same consistent issue of access not to EU labour—this is not a Brexit issue—but to the non-EEA labour on which the fishing industry has become dependent over the years.
I welcome this opportunity to speak about the Bill, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s opening speech. The fisheries sector is hugely significant in my constituency of Banff and Buchan. Peterhead is the largest white fish port in Europe, and a little further up the coast is the port of Fraserburgh. They are the two largest towns in my constituency. A little further around the coast is the smaller—but no less significant to its local community—port of Macduff. In terms of tonnage, almost half the fish landed by UK-registered boats is landed in my constituency.
Not just fishermen, but the wider communities around the coast of my constituency and of the UK have lost a great deal over the decades we have been in the common fisheries policy. There has been not only a loss of livelihood, the scrapping of boats and the closure of businesses, but fundamentally a loss of what identifies these coastal communities and the people who live there, who remember what once was. Quite rightly, the people in these communities look forward to making the most of the sea of opportunity presented by our leaving the EU and the CFP.
Everyone who speaks in this debate, and those watching in fishing communities around the UK, are keenly aware that Parliament will soon review the proposed EU withdrawal agreement, the impact on fisheries of which is not insignificant. It is therefore difficult to discuss the Bill without referring to the withdrawal agreement, the outline political declaration, or any new future fisheries agreement. I am very much aware of concerns expressed by fishing interests in my constituency and beyond. I have been reviewing the text of the agreement, as well as taking on board input from members of the fishing community, industry representatives and trade bodies, among a host of various stakeholders. My Scottish Conservative colleagues and I have made our position clear to the Government, and we look forward to working with Ministers to find a resolution to the range of concerns raised.
The variety of concerns can be summed up in two words: timings and leverage. On timings, we will leave the EU in March 2019, and when we do so, we leave the common fisheries policy. That is not a political decision, but a matter of legality—we cannot be in the CFP if we are not in the EU. Likewise, we cannot be in the EU, which would be the position of Opposition Members, and not in the CFP.
The agreement states that we enter an implementation period at that point, with that period ending on 31 December 2020. As others have mentioned, it would be welcome if clause 42 included the phrase “no later than December 2020”, because by that time, we must be in a position in which we have completed our first negotiations as an independent coastal state in time for our beginning to realise the opportunities that that presents for the calendar year 2021.
When we first enter negotiations in December 2020, we must have the maximum possible leverage. We have seen in recent media reports from the continent that EU fishing interests are far from pleased that the text of the agreement makes no mention of retaining guaranteed automatic access to UK waters post Brexit. If we are to have the maximum possible leverage in annual coastal state negotiations from December 2020, we must resist the EU’s demands for any continued automatic access to our waters. As the Prime Minister confirmed in her response to my question on this subject last week, we must not accept the EU’s attempts to link future trade agreements with automatic access to UK waters.
Alan Brown
I assume that the hon. Gentleman understands that the trade agreement is equally important. Clearly, it is important that we are able to get products to markets. We talk about everything being in isolation, but we must look at this in the mix, because that helps the whole sector.
David Duguid
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I will get to that point a little later.
The Fisheries Bill itself, and the White Paper before it, has been welcomed by organisations across the industry, including the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. This vital legislation lays the groundwork for the revival of our fishing industry outside the common fisheries policy. It is important to note that, in the event of no deal, the Bill will ensure that all UK vessels can legally continue to fish in our own waters. For example, clause 7 revokes the CFP regulation that allows EU vessels unfettered access to our waters. Clause 8 introduces the common-sense principle that any foreign vessel that wants to fish in our waters must do so on our terms. This is taking back control of our waters, and it is the basis of the British fisheries sector’s revival. Clause 9 covers those UK fishing boats that are required to be licensed, as well as stating those for which licensing will not apply.
Clause 1 defines the fisheries objectives, as many Members have said, and chief among them is the sustainability objective, which ensures that fishing and aquaculture is environmentally sustainable in the long term and managed in a way that is consistent with contributing to the economy and to food supplies. I was going to go through all the other objectives, but as I am pushed for time, I will skip them.
Clauses 9 to 17 set out rules for the licensing of UK and foreign fishing boats—I just want to cover that briefly. Although the devolved Administrations are responsible for licensing boats in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, licences issued by any UK fisheries administration will be valid across UK waters. The UK Government will agree access arrangements internationally and, although each of the devolved Administrations is responsible for issuing licences to foreign vessels in its zone, it is encouraging to know that the UK Government will administer the system, having already been provided with consent by the devolved Administrations.
Clauses 18 to 22 cover the allocation of fishing opportunities, an area on which I would like specific clarification from the Minister. Clause 18 deals with the Secretary of State’s power to determine fishing opportunities. I would appreciate it if Ministers commented on the appropriateness of the Secretary of State setting quotas for lobster or brown crab in Scotland which, I believe, are subject to international agreement. Clause 22 is about the sale of English fishing opportunities. Given that English-registered vessels operate in Scottish producer organisations and vice versa, will the Minister please provide clarification on whether these would be available for all UK vessels?
Finally, let me say something about the future of the fishing industry in my constituency and of fishing communities around the UK. After decades of deterioration within the CFP, we will not see a full recovery overnight. Government support will be required, and this House has previously been assured of that support by the Prime Minister and others
“to secure a sustainable and profitable fishing industry that will regenerate coastal communities and support future generations of UK fishermen.”
I conclude by reassuring the Minister that after we leave the CFP and become an independent coastal state, with all the powers and control that that entails, I will look forward to continuing to work with the Government to deliver that ambition to regenerate not only the fishing industry, but the wider communities and economy for which the “sea of opportunity” will deliver.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
This is an important Bill. Leaving the EU and the CFP will require effective management of our fisheries, and it is just as crucial that fishermen and fishing communities get as much certainty as possible, as far as there ever can be certainty in fishing. I think that fishermen will broadly welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, including those on controlling access to UK waters, quota and equal access for UK vessels in UK waters. However, I believe that there is still a strong case for ensuring a link between landings and home port, because it is important to recognise that fishing is more than just about catching fish; there are also issues about the sustainability of ports and port jobs.
I welcome any emphasis on a quota increase for smaller boats. Most of the North Shields fleet are under 10 metres. As been has already been said, these are the very boats most likely to land at local ports, and to fish selectively and environmentally. Despite the assurances of the Secretary of State, I still think that the Bill as drafted is in danger of missing an opportunity. If the largest five quota holders control a third of UK quota and half of UK quota is currently owned by big companies based overseas, there has to be an opportunity for a much fairer approach. Also, if 80% of the fleet are smaller boats, why is it that they get 6% of the quota? The Secretary of State attempted to give assurances for the future, and he will be held to those assurances.
I want to talk a little bit about politics—we have seen a little bit of it this afternoon—because every Fisheries Minister and every fishing representative I have ever met who has attended the annual Fisheries Council speaks about the debilitating effect of politics coming into play. Whoever the Ministers are, we must recognise the potential for politics coming into play in any alternative process. The NFFO itself describes the joint fishery statements, which it welcomes, as having scope for friction; that could be an understatement. For example, while there is support for equal access for UK vessels, there would be concerns for fishermen in my area if different regulations were introduced by different devolved authorities, so this may well prove to be a difficult matter.
I will mention another political risk for Ministers. The drift net salmon fishery in the north-east is a heritage fishery. The few licences that remain have come under pressure from successive Conservative Fisheries Ministers, who want to phase them out. Ministers have blamed the EU, saying that the fishery is part of a wider discussion on stocks. The fishermen say that it is about appeasing landowners who want to rent out fishing rights. They cannot both be right. In taking back control, Ministers need to recognise that they are going to have to own their decisions; they will not have the EU and the CFP to hide behind.
Also politically, the Bill puts a great deal of emphasis on secondary legislation. Now, it may offer greater flexibility and responsiveness, both of which would be welcome, but the emphasis, particularly in clauses 31 and 33, is on negative statutory instruments. I think we need to avoid replacing one inflexible framework with another, so I would generally favour affirmative SIs, as well as the establishment of an advisory council—perhaps on a statutory footing—that would include, for example, the NFFO.
On the issue of flexibility, I understand the reluctance to put a maximum sustainable yield in the Bill on a statutory basis, but if the Bill does have a vision of sustainability, as Ministers claim, and if they want the UK to be a world leader, the Government and other authorities need to be held to account for what this legislation delivers in the future.
Leaving the EU and the common fisheries policy means that we will no longer be able to access the European maritime and fisheries fund—a fund from which the UK has benefited by £190 million between 2014 and 2020. There is no guarantee in the Bill that this funding will be replaced, other than a vague reference to grants. North Shields is a working fishing port, so it needs constant investment. We hope that the protection jetty, which is crucial for the fleet, will be renewed. The problem, however, has not been the EMFF—it is not that bit of the funding that has proved difficult. The problem with funding is turning to local authorities that have had their funding cut, or turning to the port authority, which is concerned about the fall-out from Brexit. I want to hear what the Minister is going to do about making sure that ports like North Shields have access to funding in the future.
The White Paper talks about the coastal communities fund. That fund followed on from Sea Change, which the previous Labour Government introduced to implement regeneration in coastal and seaside towns. In my constituency, the successful regenerations of Tynemouth and Whitley Bay have partly been funded from those funds. But seaside towns sometimes have no link with the fishing industry. What we need to avoid at all costs, with a fund that is of limited resource, is getting competition and having to choose between something that will make the port work and something that is there to regenerate seaside towns so that people visit our coasts.
The EMFF includes money for data collection— €52.2 million between 2014 and 2020. It also pays, in part, for enforcement, with €45.2 million between 2014 and 2020. I ask the Minister: where will the money come from to pay for those essential elements of a future fishing policy? If we control our waters, and infringements are going to be regarded as offences, that needs enforcement, as the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) said. Last year, the Joint Maritime Operations Coordination Centre was established, but I understand from fishermen I talk to that its resources are stretched. In addition, we have dependencies in other parts of the world that require our help in policing the environmental protection zones that they have established.
So where is the money going to come from for enforcement? I fear, and many of my fishermen will fear, that it will come from a word often used in the Bill—“charging”. Fishermen operate small businesses, and, like many small businesses, they operate on the edge. A charging regime based on recouping the full cost of a regulatory regime may prove very costly. If clause 29 is anything to go by, we are talking about a substantial charging regime, and one that can be introduced and amended at the will of the Secretary of State through statutory instrument.
Let me turn briefly to something else that will determine the future of the fishing industry. Fishing is about catching fish, but it is also about selling them. The EU is our biggest importer and exporter, and market access is absolutely crucial. North Shields is the biggest prawn port in England; 95% of the prawns that are landed in North Shields are taken to be sold in Europe. They have five days to get there. Any delay, any bureaucracy or any tariff would put at risk not just the livelihood of the fishermen but perhaps the port itself. Fishermen tell me—I would like the Minister’s view on this—that if they do not have clarity by March 2019, or if there is no deal, they intend to tie up their boats, not just for weeks but for months on end.
The Government, as we have heard, have to stand by the promises that they have made. Fishermen felt let down when we went into the Common Market, and they will feel very let down if they do not get a good deal when we come out of the EU and the common fisheries policy. There is a lot in this Bill to commend it, and a lot of good ideas that should be applied whether we are in or out of the EU and the common fisheries policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Hon. Members have been very good in observing a time limit, but to make sure that everyone has a chance of speaking, I am now going to impose a formal time limit of six minutes.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to take part in a fisheries debate and, more importantly, a debate on a fisheries Bill. This Bill is naturally important to my constituency, and I welcome what it sets out to do. Fishing is an integral part of our coastal communities and their economy and culture, and it is part of our proud heritage in Cornwall, so I welcome this ambitious Bill for the fisheries industry as we leave the European Union and the common fisheries policy.
The CFP has damaged the whole UK fishing fleet. I am slightly concerned about the impact that the current withdrawal agreement could have on the UK’s sovereign control over our fisheries, but I commend the Bill and what it sets out to do. In North Cornwall, many of my constituents are quite rightly concerned about the impact that the CFP has had on coastal communities and the economy. I therefore welcome the revocation of the requirement for equal access rights for EU boats, which sits at the core of the Bill, to truly take back control of our waters and its resources within the UK and the Northern Ireland Executive economic zone. It is important to recognise that, as an independent coastal state under the UN convention on the law of the sea, nothing short of the UK Government having full control over access to fishing waters, sustainable quota and environmental measures being set in the UK is acceptable.
As the UK parliamentary bass champion, I fully agreed with Samuel Stone of the Marine Conservation Society when he said:
“This is the time for the UK to demonstrate strong leadership and to show that it can be ambitious and serious about the protection of our seas.”
I welcome the discard objectives in the Bill, which aim to gradually eliminate discards on a case-by-case basis by avoiding and reducing unwanted captures; that is particularly difficult in communities like mine, which are mixed fisheries. However, my understanding is that if the implementation period is extended, we will still effectively be in the CFP, we will still have to bid for quota and we will be subjected to the discard ban and the fines imposed under it.
Owen Smith
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is worse than that? Not only will we still be in the CFP, but we will not be formally taking part in those discussions about quota. We will be invited to attend, and we may be consulted, but we will no longer have any proper influence.
Scott Mann
That is my understanding of the withdrawal Act. The implementation period should come to an end as quickly as possible, because the discard ban and the fines that might come about from it would place our fishermen under immense pressure.
I welcome the commitments made to supporting sustainable fisheries by ensuring that all our harvested stocks are in line with maximum sustainable yield. I was told recently that we must follow the science, and that is equally important with fisheries management. It is great to see the UK committing itself to internationally defined standards adopted by most successful fisheries and fisheries management regimes around the world.
However, more could be done through the Bill to ensure that we meet those targets. A light-tough approach to the duties placed on authorities to deliver on these objectives risks the complete undermining of the Government’s stated ambition. There is an absence of duty on fisheries managers to set fisheries limits on exceeding levels, to restore stocks or maintain maximum sustainable yield, and a lack of deadline for restoring stocks above maximum sustainable levels. I therefore recommend a binding duty to ensure that, as soon as the Bill comes into force, fisheries managers cannot set fishing limits above scientific recommended levels. That would deliver the UK Government’s objective to restore stocks.
I firmly believe that we have a chance to invest in our fishing industry and bring innovation at a time of change and changing technology, to improve both safety and prosperity in the industry. I welcome the Budget announcement of £12 million for the fishing industry, with £10 million of that money coming from UK Research and Innovation, to establish an innovation fund to help transform the fisheries industry, and £2 million being set aside for fisheries safety projects across the UK and on-board safety equipment; I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) has pushed for that for some time.
The fishing industry and its practices have not developed much over the last 40 years, and it is time we brought innovation into the industry. Taking back control of our fisheries policy gives us a chance to ensure that the UK is a world leader in sustainability and safe and productive fishing methods. Investing in technology and technological change will help the UK to stick to its scientific objectives, which commit us to contributing to the collection of scientific data. An example of where we have gone wrong in the past with a fishing technique that has not evolved is the gill net. Currently, juvenile fish can be caught in an overloaded net, and this is one area where the tech innovation fund could look at new ways of developing gill net mesh.
Technology can also boost productivity for independent fishing businesses, support entrepreneurship and provide the ability to create new real-time data to allow fish to be sold directly to restaurants straight off the boats. An example of this is an independent small business in Cornwall that uses an app to register and download fish information as soon as the fish has gone into the boat, so that it can be sold to restaurants as soon as the boat comes back.
In my last minute, I would like to talk about recreational angling, which is hugely important to coastal communities such as mine. I commend the support in the Bill for promoting recreational angling. One opportunity this Fisheries Bill affords us involves Atlantic bluefin tuna. Stocks have collapsed over decades from commercial overfishing, but with the return of these iconic fish to the British Isles—in particular, to Cornwall—we now have a real opportunity to grasp the nettle and embrace this opportunity. As an independent and sovereign member of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, we have the opportunity to request a quota, and I believe we should. A fish that is caught by rod and line and returned to the sea is worth six times more to the economy than a fish that is landed, killed and eaten. I will leave it there, but I commend this Bill.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to colleagues for interrupting this important debate, but the House should know that in the past hour some journalists in Brussels have been tweeting that the proposed European summit this weekend will be cancelled. I have no idea whether or not this is true—it could just be journalistic speculation—but given the importance of that potential meeting for the future of this country, have you had any indication from the Government that a Minister may be prepared to come to this House at 7 pm, before we rise, to clarify the situation? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We will not have sedentary interventions at this point.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but he knows very well that it is not a point I can answer from the Chair. I could do so if I had had notice of the intention of any Minister to come to the Chamber, but I have had no such notice. However, I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that, as matters have developed outside this Chamber on the subject to which he refers, Ministers have been very assiduous in coming to the House as soon as possible to keep the House, Parliament and the country updated about what is happening. I have every confidence that as soon as a relevant Minister has something of importance to say, he or she will come to the Chamber to say it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I just hope that we get through the next six minutes without any major developments of that sort.
May I first associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State and others who have spoken in this debate about the very dangerous nature of fishing as an occupation? I was born and brought up on Islay on the west coast of Scotland, and I attended Islay High School, which, from memory, had in the region of 300 pupils. I calculate that at least five men have died in the course of their work as fishermen since I was at school with them. That is one very graphic illustration of the genuinely perilous nature of the work done by these men.
I very much welcome this Bill and the opportunity to contribute to the debate on it. Although my party does not have an automatic right to a place on the Public Bill Committee, I hope it might be possible on this occasion, as the Bill progresses, for me to serve on the Committee. Fishing is an enormously important industry in the constituency that I represent. In Shetland, it accounts for about one third of the local economy.
We essentially have a piece of enabling legislation before us. I have some concerns about the inclusion of some of the rather broadly drawn powers for negative resolution, but that was always going to be the case, because unless and until we know the full picture of the political settlement on which the future management arrangements will have to be constructed, it will not be possible to have an awful lot more.
It is clear, however, that the fishing industry looks forward to the next few years with a great deal of expectation. Clear promises have been made, particularly on the Government’s refusal to allow access to waters for foreign vessels in return for access to markets. The Minister will be aware that the industry looks to him and his colleagues to ensure that those promises are kept, but it is clear from—[Interruption.] I do hope my speech is not interrupting the conversation on the Back Benches. It is clear from the answer that the Prime Minister gave me last week that that argument is still very much in play, and it is something on which those of us who represent communities where fishing is important will have to work together.
There has been a lot of knockabout. There was talk of the Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill, which was a 10-minute rule Bill brought forward some years ago by Alex Salmond. Among the supporters of that Bill were Alex Salmond, Roy Beggs, Eddie McGrady, Austin Mitchell, Ann Winterton, Elfyn Llwyd, Angus Robertson, Michael Weir and me. As the last man standing from that somewhat eclectic group, it is useful to remind the House why that Bill was brought forward and supported by that coalition.
The context was that the industry was under the cosh as a result of the cod recovery programme that was then being imposed by the European Commission through the December Council arrangements. As representatives of an industry that did not have a lot of political clout or commercial force, we understood that we would be able to make its voice heard only if we worked together. Many of us came to that position from different starting points and through different routes. I say to all the hon. Members who have succeeded the former Members in that list that the same remains true today. We will get what we need only if we work together. I encourage hon. Members from both sides of the House to understand that.
The question that I want the Minister to answer is how the voice of our fishermen will be heard during the period after March next year and before the end of 2020, when the transitional arrangements will come to a conclusion. It was put to me rather graphically, and rather well, by a representative from Shetland Fishermen today, who said, “If you are not at the table, you will be on the menu.” We face that real risk during the transitional period.
How will we influence things such as the annual EU-Norway talks? I asked the Secretary of State and received a fairly broad answer, but perhaps I can get some more detail about how, in practical terms, when it comes to the renegotiation of the mackerel deal between the EU, Norway, the Faroes and Iceland, we will be able to get our point across. Essentially, we were rolled over once by the EU Commission on that. When we are not sitting at the table at the end of next year, how will we ensure that that does not happen again? Those concerns are not fanciful or insubstantial.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Surely, fishing was important enough to the Conservative Government for them to have thought about that in their transitional agreement with the European Union. It must be on page something-or-other.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman will have heard my comments in March when the agreement was concluded. It was apparent then that the Government—certainly the then Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and probably the Prime Minister—did not understand its importance. I hope that subsequent events have persuaded them of its importance and that we will not see any backsliding in the future, because they would pay a heavy political price for that.
This is not a fanciful or insubstantial concern. The Minister will know that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advice in relation to North sea cod will be looking at substantial reductions again this year. I hope we are not back to the situation in which we found ourselves at the turn of the century, but it is not impossible that we will be. The truth of the matter is that it was almost impossible at that point, with our Ministers sitting at the table, to make our voice heard and to get the deal that was needed. Without anybody at the table, I have to say that I think it will be impossible. The price for that failure to deliver during the transitional arrangements stands to be paid by our fishing fleets.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, may I take you to the sunlit uplands of 2028 as imagined by my great friends in the Angling Trust in this amazing press release?
“In South Cornwall, swathes of new guesthouses, hotels and restaurants have opened up to service the visiting anglers fishing for blue fin tuna in Falmouth bay. The millions of pounds this has brought to the region has resulted in hundreds of full-time equivalent jobs servicing anglers travelling from the UK and from overseas to take advantage of the world-class big game angling opportunities that Cornwall is once again offering.
Meanwhile, nearly a decade of management measures protecting the spawning bass stock in the southern North sea has turned Clacton-on-Sea into the go-to location for weekend Londoners now spending their money bass fishing and enjoying their catches cooked before them in one of Clacton’s many new seafood restaurants capitalising on the turnaround of the North sea into one of the UK’s most productive fishing grounds. More broadly, the Essex coast is once again seeing former charter captains, such as Stewart Ward, returning to the sea.
It is worth remembering that none of these dramatic developments would have been possible without the Government’s brave and radical decision when the UK left the EU to ensure fish stocks were managed sustainably and to maximise the return to the UK of the sustainable use of fisheries resources and protection of the marine environment.
The policy was controversial at the time, but the bold and ambitious move has paid off in ways even the most ardent supporter of such a policy could not have expected at the time. The UK is now a world leader in how to manage fish stocks sustainably, so they deliver the biggest benefits to society as a whole.”
The press release concludes:
“EU policy makers are now planning to follow suit in the next reform of the Common Fisheries Policy which, like the reforms before it, from 2002 to the last one in 2022 failed to live up to their promises.”
That is the prize—and, my word, is it a prize. Imagine people from around the world travelling to Cornwall to catch 500 lb tuna fish—not to knock the tuna on the head and put them in a refrigerated ship to be cut up on a slab, but to be part of a conservation programme so that they can be tagged, measured and released; a big game fishery that means people who love fishing and catching big fish do not have to fly to Kenya to do it? People from around the world will be flying to London and regional airports to get to Falmouth, so they can go big game fishing. This is going to be a fantastic opportunity. Charter skippers will be able to charge somewhere in the region of £1,500 a day to take three fishermen, fisherwomen or fisherpersons out. Wow.
As for bass fishing, what an opportunity: thousands of beds around Essex filled up with anglers at the weekends and during holidays with their fly rods and spinning rods, coming to Essex and other coastal communities and counties to catch bass; bass that are no longer plundered but preserved for game fishermen. Of course, I do not want to see commercial fishermen cut out of bass fishing, but I know there is a way of managing our bass stocks so both interests can have a sustainable future. As well as the big politics of Brexit, that is what we need to be discussing today: the fish, because the fish are really important.
I want to say a couple more things before I sit down—I said I would be brief. The management of our fish stocks, as far as recreational anglers are concerned, has been nothing short of catastrophic up to this point. Until 1 October, if I had gone bass fishing with my son and we had caught a bass each, we both would have been required to return them. Even if they had been above the 42 cm keep limit, it would have been illegal for us to keep a fish. That is not right; fish stocks belong to everyone. I see in front of me my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who speaks so passionately about fishing. She understands that they need to be shared out and that recreational fishermen need to be able to keep a fish or two, or maybe three, for their family and friends. That is not being greedy; it is connecting with nature and the sea.
I look around the Chamber and see colleagues who are passionate about fishing, but we need to have a bit more passion about the fish. We need to make sure that we have viable fish stocks for people to enjoy.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
My hon. Friend is a fantastic spokesperson for the leisure and recreational fishing fraternity. Will he tell us how the ban on catching bass has affected the angling fraternity under the common fisheries policy and how they will benefit once we leave?
Mr Walker
The press release that I quoted mentioned Stewart Ward, who is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who was sitting here a few moments ago. Stewart Ward lost his business. He was a charter skipper in Essex, and he wrote to me to explain why it happened. When people pay their £40 or so to go out on a fishing trip, they like to keep a fish or two, which is perfectly reasonable. It is a natural thing for someone to want to bring their catch home—it is part of the harvester in many of us. However, his clients and guests were not allowed to keep the fish, and they could not justify spending the money if they were not able to bring part—not all—of their catch home. It has had a damaging—some would say catastrophic—effect on the recreational angling fleet and those who enjoy recreational angling.
I have spoken for too long. I think I have made the case for fish, and I hope that we in this Chamber can continue to make the case for fish long after we have left the EU in a few months’ time.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
As the Member of Parliament for Argyll and Bute, a constituency with an aggregated coastline longer than that of France, I am well aware of the importance of fishing and aquaculture to the economic wellbeing of my constituency and communities around the UK. I am also very aware of the dangers faced by fishermen, with the community of Tarbert, in particular, still mourning the loss of Duncan MacDougall and Przemek Krawczyk when the Nancy Glen sank in January this year.
As well as having an inshore fishing fleet, we in Argyll and Bute also export huge quantities of shellfish—some of the best in the world—and we are proud to be the home of many world-renowned salmon, halibut and trout producers. This means that there are significant differences between the industries on the west coast and those on the east, but that does not mean that they do not share common ground. First, they both rely on guaranteed, fast, unhindered access to markets. Secondly, they need to be able to recruit the right people to crew their boats, and they need sufficient numbers of people to process their catch quickly and efficiently and dispatch it to where it has to go—much of it to continental Europe.
They also share common ground on their justified fear of what is contained in the Government’s withdrawal agreement, because that agreement does not provide the frictionless trade that they want and need, nor does it guarantee access to the workforce that they require. Arguably, most damagingly of all, it puts Scotland’s fishing industry at a competitive disadvantage compared with Northern Ireland. In short, what the Prime Minister is proposing does not guarantee a bright future for the Scottish fishing industry.
The fishing industry, particularly on the west coast of Scotland, is facing a recruitment crisis. I was very pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) raise that issue, because we desperately need the ability to recruit fishermen to work on our boats and in our processing factories.
As I suspected we might, we have heard a great deal this afternoon about the shortcomings of the CFP, and I, for one, will not defend it, but let me be clear: as I said earlier this afternoon, despite all the bluster and obfuscation from the Conservative party, it was complicit in the CFP’s creation and has been actively implementing it for the past 40 years. Since 1970, the Conservative party has been in power for 38 years. From Ted Heath, to Margaret Thatcher, John Major and the rest of them, the Conservative party’s fingerprints are all over the CFP.
Let the record show that since the early 1970s the SNP in this place has been the consistent and vocal opposition to the CFP. I can understand why that makes nervous listening for Conservative Members. Despite their attempts to position themselves as the champions of Scottish fishing, the truth is that Conservative Governments down the years have time and again sold out the fishing industry when convenient. Deep down, they know that that is exactly what this Government are planning to do again. I look at the sprinkling of long faces on the Government Benches, and their demeanour is very different from what it was a year ago, because the Scottish Conservative Members know that they have been hung out to dry by their own Prime Minister and that the promises they made to the fishing communities in the north-east of Scotland before last year’s general election are absolutely worthless.
I am sure that the Scottish Conservative Members will have read, probably through the cracks in their fingers, the article by Mure Dickie in yesterday’s Financial Times, when he highlighted the reality of what is happening in the north-east of Scotland. One Peterhead-based fish wholesaler told him:
“I think we have been sold down the river once again. It is an absolute disgrace.”
He is right—it is an absolute disgrace—but this is what happens when it turns out that the one-trick pony cannot even perform the trick.
It certainly did not take long for the “cast-iron” guarantees of the 2017 general election to become the latest addition to the shameful roll call of Tory betrayal of the Scottish fishing industry. Does anyone believe that had Scotland been in control of its own fishing assets in 1972 we would have allowed this vital industry to be treated as a bargaining chip in the way it has been for the last four decades? Only an independent Scottish Government can adequately look after the interests of our fishing industry; only an independent Scottish Government will recognise the significance of this industry’s contribution to our economy; and only an independent Scottish Government can be relied upon not to use our fishing industry as a bargaining chip.
The stark truth is that the glib and hollow promises made last year by career-hungry candidates wearing blue rosettes are now unravelling, because they were all predicated on a UK Government acting in the best interests of the Scottish fishing industry. History has taught them nothing. I look forward to the day when an independent Scotland, as a member of the European Union, can help to shape a common fisheries policy that works for us and is of benefit to our neighbours as well.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and also to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), because I have a message for him: it was a previous Conservative leader and Prime Minister who went to Europe, fought for the United Kingdom and brought money back from Europe. The SNP should not forget that.
I welcome the principle behind the Bill and the fundamental principle of taking back control of our fisheries. We have already debated what an enormous mistake it has been—for our fishing communities, our economy and our environment—to leave our fishing policy subject to EU control for the last 40 years. Nowhere is the damage the EU has caused to our country more evident than in the decline of our fishing industry and communities across the country.
All those who work tirelessly risking their lives to bring back the fresh fish we enjoy eating and supporting their families and communities should be remembered and respected for their endurance and sacrifice. Our fishing communities have seen their industry diminished, while billions of pounds of our money and taxes have been spent via the EU investing in other fleets, including the Spanish. We have seen the EU allocate more quotas for some species in our waters to other EU countries than to us. As we have heard—in fact, the Secretary of State gave this figure—84% of the rights to fish for cod in the English channel have gone to the French, leaving 9% for British fishermen. That is not right. In fact, about two thirds of the fish caught in UK waters are caught by EU fleets.
Successive British Governments have had to do more in the past, and that is part of the reason we now have the opportunity to take back control. We have seen controls that were placed on our fishermen, in our waters, to protect the environment completely ignored by the fishing fleets of other countries—famously so. Because of EU rules, Spanish and French fishermen in our waters have been able to ignore the environmental protections that we put in place and value.
Let me say to all those—especially Opposition Members—who think that the EU is some sort of guarantor of environmental standards and that we are incapable of protecting our own environment, that we need look no further than the devastation created by the common fisheries policy to see that it is the EU that cannot be trusted with our environment. That applies specifically to discards—the CFP has caused large quantities of healthy fish to be thrown back dead into the sea—and to the French vessels that used to undertake bass pair trawling in our seas, damaging the seabed and ensnaring in their nets all marine life, including dolphins. Of course there has been reform, but the discard ban is flawed, and the only way in which we can support fishing communities and manage the marine environment in a sustainable way is to pass the Bill and take back control.
That, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know, is why the Bill is so important. It is an enabling Bill, but it leaves so much open to future decisions. It empowers Ministers to take control of our own waters, but some of that will happen only in due course. We may be vulnerable to not being able to take back the full control that we expect and that our fishing communities across the United Kingdom expect too. There are fears that come the negotiations on the future relationship, our fisheries will once again be traded away.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for her speech earlier, but, more to the point, for the robust work that she has done consistently on this issue and for being such an enormous champion of our fishing communities— if only we had more politicians who were so prepared to challenge and question. In response to a question from my hon. Friend last week, the Prime Minister said that
“the UK should be an independent coastal state able to negotiate the issue of access to its waters”.
—[Official Report, 15 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 461.]
However, as my hon. Friend has rightly said,
“Surely we should control access if we are properly leaving the European Union. Are we just leaving the Common Fisheries Policy in name only?”
This is about clarity. It would be a travesty if, after December 2020, the EU remained in control of our fisheries. In no circumstances should our rights to control our fisheries be negotiated away, and it is concerning that there is a risk that that could happen. There is ambivalence—a convenient ambivalence—in the language used in negotiations. Page 4 of the outline of the political declaration on the future relationship states:
“Within the context of the overall economic partnership, establishment of a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares, to be in place in time to be used for determining fishing opportunities for the first year after the transition period.”
Given the history of fisheries and the critical impact on fishing communities and the environment, I urge the Government not to lock our fisheries into a trade deal that would leave us in a place that is similar to our current position in the CFP. We must show leadership, and show that we will take back control over quota and over what can be fished in our seas. In future negotiations that we have as a coastal state, we should start from the basis that the fish in our seas are ours. The starting point should not be based on current EU agreements and the CFP.
There are many other concerns, a number of which have already been raised, but the fundamental principle must be that we are taking back control. Our Government will fight for our fishing industry and our communities around the country. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do this and get it right.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is an honour to follow my friend the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) in this important debate. As Members have said, this is the first time in over 40 years that the House has considered primary legislation on what is one of our most important industries. While some Members might be churlish and blame the Conservatives for taking us into the CFP, the fact of the matter is that I hope they take us out properly, and get us out totally, completely and absolutely—free, unfettered and unbowed, with a new policy for our fishing industry once and for all. Little wonder there have been waves across the Chamber because of the excitement of our getting out of the European Union. The only reason why we are having this debate is that the people of this United Kingdom took a decision—“It’s time to leave.” I hope that the Bill honours that decision by over 17 million people and that we will leave the EU and do so properly. I look forward to that.
Those member states that wish to stay with the common fisheries policy and to be supplicant to the EU should consider their priorities. My nearest neighbour, the Republic of Ireland, takes 40% of its total allowable catch from our British waters and is further dependent for processing on British trawlers that have landed their catches from the seas of Northern Ireland.
Brendan O'Hara
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I, as the Member for Argyll and Bute—a constituency that overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU—am indeed listening to my constituents when I stand up and fight for their right to remain in at least the single market and the customs union?
Ian Paisley
I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman represents his constituents in the way he wishes, and does so valiantly. He is of course entitled to do that and to have a different opinion on this matter, but we do have to leave the EU.
I want to address the issue of how the Irish Republic currently treats its neighbour, Northern Ireland. We have the voisinage agreement, which has not been raised today. It disgusts me that the Republic of Ireland keeps talking about not wanting a hard border in Northern Ireland and says that that would be a disgrace, yet has created what is effectively a hard border for County Down fishermen by breaking the voisinage agreement time and again. How is the Irish Republic going to treat Spanish fishermen when they are not allowed to fish in British seas after we leave the EU? How is it going to treat people from other member states? If it treats them in the way it has treated the people of Northern Ireland, those fishermen will feel a hard border within Europe also.
Kate Hoey
The Prime Minister talks about taking back control of our fishing, yet for the last two years, the Republic of Ireland has reneged on that agreement. We could have taken back at least that bit of control by saying, “Sorry, we’re not going to let your fishermen come into our area,” but the Government have not done so.
Ian Paisley
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. We all know why the Republic of Ireland has decided to have this debate about the hard border: it has taken away from its having to address the important, hard questions that it should have been considering, such as what sort of trade relationship it should have with its biggest trading partner, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It did not want to address that matter; it wanted to hide behind the issue of the hard border to confuse things and camouflage the real, important issue.
I raise that matter because according to the European Union’s most recent report on fishing and agriculture, if the Republic of Ireland does not get a trade agreement with the United Kingdom, it will lose a staggering €5.5 billion from its agri-food and fishing industry. It has been reported that the study
“prepared for the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development lays bare the full potential impact of a hard Brexit and singles out the Ireland as one of the most badly hit member states.”
Yet what has that member state done? Has it tried to help in this? Has it tried to make the voisinage agreement work? No, it has done everything to penalise Ulster fishermen and Ulster farmers, and it should be ashamed of how it has behaved.
I hope that that sends the message to the Spanish and the French that that is how the Republic of Ireland is going to treat them, and about what sort of hard border it will have when it suits it. Little wonder that we have had so many problems with the Republic of Ireland over the past two years during this negotiating period.
The Fisheries Bill should lead to a revival of our coastal towns, as we have heard from across the Chamber today, and I hope that it really does. There is one way in which we could achieve that, and I appeal to the Secretary of State and the Minister to do this. During the transition period, will they use every effort possible, and every investment opportunity available, to invest in our coastal towns and put them in a state of preparedness by increasing their production ability and improving their harbours? I hope that we can do the same for Scotland as well. It is critical that we have harbours across our nation that are able to land the catches that will be available to us and that we have processing industries in place from Argyll and Bute in Scotland to Portavogie and Kilkeel. All those things should be put in place, and we can do that only during the transition period. If we are not ready then, we will not be ready when we leave the transition period. I hope that we actually do this.
There is a fear that the withdrawal agreement, the Fisheries Bill and the transition period, when they are taken together, all mean different things to different folk at different times. As the right hon. Member for Witham said, we need clarity in this debate. We have heard something of that today from the Secretary of State, but we need to hear more. We also need to ensure that all these things dovetail properly so that our fishermen receive the clarity of language and meaning that they are entitled to. We have already heard some discussion about whether article 6(2) actually means what it says. Will it, for example, penalise our fishermen if a backstop is brought into place? I believe that it will, although the Minister assures me that it will not. We need more certainty on that point. If the Secretary of State were a lawyer, he would not be recommending article 6(2) to a client, and if it will penalise our fishermen, we should not be accepting it for one of our key industries in Northern Ireland.
The Bill fails to account for crew shortages. The immigration White Paper is not yet ready, and we will be able to make sense of this matter only when we get that White Paper. I hope that we will hear words today that will address that issue and that we will know sooner rather than later what the immigration White Paper will say about addressing the key matter of crew shortages. In addition, Northern Ireland demands fairness in how it is treated in the sharing out of quotas between Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. It is essential that we get that fairness; otherwise, it could be catastrophic for how we behave internally as a nation.
I also regret that the Bill does not refer to an advisory council to help with management. Such bodies have proved most beneficial in Norway and Australia. There is also the key issue of our Crown dependencies. The European Union is able to take fish freely from the seas around our Crown dependencies, and we need to ensure that we have some sort of an agreement with Crown dependencies such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Finally, I pay tribute to the Minister as he prepares for his penultimate or final December Fisheries Council meeting. I wish him all the very best as he wishes bon voyage to Europe.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my friend and colleague the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I, too, would like to pay tribute to our fishermen. We have had our share of tragedy in South Dorset, and I have seen at first hand the effect of losing a trawler and its crew on the parents and friends involved. It is devastating, and I pay tribute to all those who bravely go out to provide food for our table.
Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) is not here at the moment. I agree with his enthusiastic sunny-upland vision of how his constituency would look in, I think, 2028. He had a vision of a time when fishing will be back in our hands, when all the bed and breakfasts will be full, when local fish will be served, and when Weymouth and Portland—the most beautiful part of this United Kingdom—will be full of fishing shops and of people visiting and enjoying the stunning countryside and coastline. That is the vision—it is sadly sometimes lost in the House—that we need to hold on to as we respect the vote that was taken in 2016.
Fish is a particularly totemic issue, and I believe that this is a matter of trust. In this place, however, trust has dipped to a terrible ebb. At Question Time today, we heard the Prime Minister say that there was a threat of no Brexit at all. Afterwards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Ms McVey), who was sitting to my right, asked the Prime Minister to confirm that there would be a Brexit, come what may. She did, but those two statements are incompatible.
I would like personally to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, both of whom I have immense respect for. I know that they will work hard. The Minster, in particular—he has been in post longer than the Secretary of State—has worked extremely hard for our fishing and farming communities, so I thank him for all that he has done for my constituency.
The Bill revokes the EU legislation that currently sets the UK’s fishing opportunities, giving the Secretary of State powers to determine those opportunities. However, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has said:
“If the Government backs down on its promises to the UK fishing industry, many of the objectives that the Fisheries Bill is aiming to achieve will be impossible.”
The Government must not back down on their promises to this totemic industry. If we do, it will be to our shame. Clause 7, on “Revocation of requirement for equal access for EU fishing vessels”, clause 8, on “Access to British fisheries by foreign fishing boats”, clause 11, on “Foreign fishing boats required to be licensed if within British fishery limits”, clause 12, on “Power to grant licences in respect of foreign fishing boats”, clause 18, on “fishing opportunities”, clause 23, on “Discard prevention charging schemes”, and clause 28, which relates to grants to the fishing industry in England after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, will all become pointless if we remain in the customs union beyond the transition period.
Let us not forget that behind the scenes our European allies and friends—I regret to say this—are plotting and scheming, as they have been doing. We know that Sabine Weyand, Mr Barnier’s No. 2, told EU ambassadors in a leaked note that Britain
“would have to swallow a link between access to products and fisheries in future agreements”
after the transition period as part of any trade deal. She said:
“This requires the customs union as the basis of the future relationship. They must align their rules but the EU will retain all the controls.”
That sends a shiver down my spine, and I suspect that the fishing industry will feel the same.
We know that we will not have control of our waters until after Brexit day, which in my view is 21 months after March 2019. That is when this country, I hope, will be truly free. As I understand it, until that time we will remain in the CFP. Earlier I asked the Secretary of State whether extending the implementation period, rather than applying the backstop, would still keep us in the CFP. I would be most grateful if the Minister told us whether the answer to that question is yes or no.
I also seek an assurance that the fishing industry, Members of the House and all those in our fishing communities will not be sold out for the sake of some other deal that can be made with the EU. EU countries are making it clear that they will not accept being locked out of UK waters post Brexit. In return for Britain’s continued membership of the customs union after the transition, the EU will demand continued status quo access to UK waters for its trawlers, even though the UK will have departed from the CFP. The French, Danish, Spanish and Portuguese Governments are under particular pressure to deliver for their fleets.
I have an awful lot more to say but only 30 seconds remaining, so I will end on this note. I stand here on behalf of the many fishermen in my constituency—there are a lot in South Dorset—to ask those on the Government Front Bench not to let us down on this issue, and to get us out of the EU totally and utterly. Only then, I believe, can we move to the sunny uplands envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I wish to begin my remarks by thanking Associated British Ports in Grimsby for its annual remembrance service, which remembers the Grimsby fishermen on 375 wrecked trawlers that were used as minesweepers in world war one. This week, divers discovered 307 of those that were lost, which have been sitting at the bottom of the sea for the past 100 years. There is a short video about it on the BBC news website. I also thank the Fishermen’s Mission for its continued support for fishermen and their families in Grimsby and for organising the annual lost fishermen’s memorial, which is much appreciated by the community in Grimsby.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State has returned to his seat, because he concluded his comments with his usual flourishing rhetoric. Although that might suit his populist aims, I ask him for a little caution. The promises of the leave campaign followed similar lines, promising communities like mine not so much a land of milk and honey as a sea of cod and haddock.
The Library briefing shows that landings in Grimsby have now reduced to around 4,000 tonnes of shellfish. Tackling my town’s health inequalities, education attainment levels, underinvestment in the public realm, low wages and high unemployment—things that would demonstrate that positive change is coming to my town—surely cannot come from just the two additional trawlers that fishermen have told me they expect to be able to afford to add post Brexit. Surely those two trawlers are not going to change the fortunes of my town, solving years of complex issues of underinvestment and a sense of limited opportunity locally. If the Secretary of State wants to tell me otherwise. I would be grateful to hear him. There needs to be a sense of realism in this debate, rather than leading people down a false road.
I also hope the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to read the responses to the White Paper from Andrew Marr International Ltd, Peter & J. Johnstone Ltd and UK Fisheries Ltd, all organisations that play an essential role in the local Grimsby community. They provide employment in the community and in the fishing industry, investing in vessels and contributing to the country’s economy, as well as its dinner plates.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who has returned just at the right time, about the importance of the processing sector to my town. It employs some 5,000 people doing everything, from those working in the fish market to those working on the auctions, to the independent traders who take the product around the country and to the filleters, packers, accountants, logisticians, managers and so much more. We really should hear more of their voices in this debate.
The Bill says that fishery and aquaculture products will not be included in a customs arrangement unless there is agreement between the EU and the UK on access to waters and fishing opportunities. Trawler operators in Grimsby have expressed concern to me that it is precisely because of the value of the catch and the benefit to those EU nations’ economies that there is such a desire to keep the two so closely tied. For vessels that are based in the UK and land in the UK, there is little that can persuade them that there is any need to keep the lines of communication and good-natured trading relationships open, but as Grimsby has the benefit of both pelagic and distance fleet interests, particularly in landing, storage and processing, there is a bit of a conflict. The Government must consider carefully the whole UK fleet in all its sizes and purposes.
Where there is commonality, it largely comes through the hard work of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which has taken a realistic and pragmatic view, with the benefit of knowing all levels of the industry well. The NFFO says it accepts that the sustainability of fish and fishing is important—of course if there are no fish, there is no fishing—and it is open to improving further the relationships with science and the broader industry, supporting a review of the quota system and advocating for an adaptive, responsive fisheries policy.
My time has run short very quickly. Concerns have been raised about the Bill, and the current framing provides for east coast vessels to fish in Scottish waters, but it still empowers Marine Scotland to provide the rules under which they fish. The Bill does not give any detail of what that will mean in practice, and there is concern that conditions may be placed on activity that cause unnecessary disadvantage due to issues such as the subtle differences in activity or in the place of landing. It is envisaged that there will be a memorandum of understanding among the devolved nations to agree a template for fishing management activities, but MOUs are not legally binding and can be withdrawn from at any time.
Angela Smith
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is too little detail in this Bill that gives us any idea of certainty in the future?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We will be going down to five minutes after this speech.
Melanie Onn
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that has been raised with me: leaving future rules under which boats may fish to the whims of what is, in effect, a gentleman’s agreement does not provide any assurance or security to the east coast industry. There is a sense of history repeating itself, as the same industry feels that the fisheries concordat has also not served it well and that those who make the decisions have not fully heard the concerns raised by this section of the fishing industry. As an MOU may be withdrawn from, there is also the issue of the proposed joint fisheries statements to address. The Bill would allow for a devolved Administration to walk away simply by stating their reasons. There really must be a dispute resolution mechanism; allowing for a collective statement to fall simply due to a lack of administrative preparations seems short-sighted at best, but it would also render such a statement useless.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, which will hopefully provide the framework for regenerating the Lowestoft and East Anglian fishing industry, which in the past has been an important component part of the local economy. It has sadly declined in recent years, with thousands of jobs being lost, but with the right support, the right management system and the right policies, the industry can be rebuilt, we can attract inward investments and the industry can play a key role in the regeneration of coastal communities, not just in East Anglia but around the UK.
Fishing has taken place off the East Anglian coast for more than 1,000 years. Lowestoft was previously the fishing capital of the southern North Sea and was the hub of an industry that included many other ports in the region. Today, East Anglia sits next to one of the richest fishing fields in Europe, but little local benefit is derived from it. To revive local fishing, the industry earlier this year formed REAF—the Renaissance of East Anglian Fishing. With support from Waveney District Council, an application was submitted to the Marine Management Organisation for a European maritime and fisheries fund grant for a study that will develop a long-term strategy for the future of the East Anglian industry.
The application was approved earlier this month, and work is just beginning on a project that will help shape a positive and profitable future for the industry as a whole, from the net to the plate. Its objective is to establish how the economic and social benefits of the fishing industry in East Anglia can be best captured and optimised. This exciting project can revive fishing along the East Anglian coast, but to do so it needs the right national policy framework in place, and that is what this Bill needs to provide. From REAF’s perspective, the Bill must provide the following: first, the East Anglian fleet must be able to catch and land sufficient fish so that those working on the boats can earn a reasonable living and can supply local markets, processing and retailing businesses—the existing quota system has treated them shabbily, and it must be reformed.
Secondly, the Bill must ensure that local coastal communities benefit from any increase in catches and landings. The economic link policy, which is in the CFP and which is being transferred to the emerging UK fisheries policy, must have teeth and must actually achieve its objective, rather than remaining a high-minded statement. There is a Lowestoft producer organisation, but its vessels do not land their fish in Lowestoft—they do so in the Netherlands and in Peterhead. We must have more boats landing their catches in East Anglian ports.
Thirdly, the duty to fish sustainably must be ingrained in the Bill’s DNA. Management decisions must be made locally, with local fishermen working closely with local regulators and local scientists using up-to-date local knowledge and science. I acknowledge that many fish stocks have improved in recent years, but we really can do better than we do at present, whereby the current system allows the abhorrent practice of electro-pulse fishing to continue, notwithstanding the evidence that it is devastating fish stocks, wreaking havoc upon the marine environment and preventing local East Anglian fishermen from earning a living.
Credit must go to the team at DEFRA, the Ministers and the officials for drafting the Bill in such a short time. We do not need a Bill that just does the job and ticks the necessary boxes; we need a Bill that lasts the test of time and becomes an exemplar for the promotion of sustainable fishing and the reinvigoration of coastal communities. Like most others here, I have received many representations from organisations and specialists with proposals on how the Bill can be improved. Although it is an enabling Bill and much of the detail will be set out in secondary legislation, I urge the Government to look closely at the proposals that have been put forward and to see how the Bill can be improved.
I re-emphasise that the allocation of quota must be fairer and accessible to all and should take place transparently, rather than in the existing opaque way. That will enable all fishermen from all communities to really benefit from Brexit.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I declare an interest: I am proud to speak on behalf of my daughter and her partner, who operate a fishing vessel out of Porthdinllaen. I am proud to represent the many coastal communities of Llŷn, Eifionydd and Meirionnydd, and all their fishing families.
Let me begin by outlining the special nature of the Welsh fishing industry, which is structurally different from that of the rest of United Kingdom, and especially different from Scotland’s, despite the devolved environment in which both nations operate. There are approximately 400 vessels in the Welsh fishing fleet, the vast majority of which are under 10 metres. These small boats operate in some of the most challenging and dangerous inshore environments. I have spoken to experienced fishermen, such as Brett Garner of Llŷn, as well as to long-serving spokesmen such as Owie Roberts of Edern and Jim Evans of the Welsh Fishermen’s Association, and I wish to convey some of their fears and aspirations as we look towards the future of Welsh fishing.
Trading in live produce with a short shelf life is a tricky business at the best of times, but the imposition of customs checks and any slowdown in the trade process will mean deterioration and mortality, making trade desperately difficult under many predictable post-Brexit eventualities. I note, too, that the valuable trade in whelks, which are the mainstay of many Welsh fishermen, the value of whose UK landings in June this year was £2.6 million, has South Korea among its primary destinations. That trade is enabled by an EU extended trade agreement. To state the bleeding obvious, the UK currently has no trade agreements with Korea directly. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for International Trade to facilitate the future of this important local industry?
Tariff barriers would have an immense impact on viability, but non-tariff barriers could also be truly devastating. Welsh fishermen’s spokespeople have urged me to ask the Minister, given the vulnerability of fishermen’s livelihoods to any hold-ups in the transporting of their produce to European and worldwide markets alike, what plans he has to set aside financial support for inshore, small-vessel operators, in preparation for the possibility of a no-deal Brexit.
Before quota responsibilities were devolved to the Welsh Government, which is currently the case, the Westminster Government authorised the sale of 88% of Welsh fishing quotas to Spanish businesses. They were content for the market to operate unimpeded and condoned the loss of resources for the Welsh fishing industry. Indeed, only 10% of Wales’s quota is currently held in Welsh waters, and only 27% of the quota is even caught in UK waters. That raises the question: why did Westminster permit quotas to be at the mercy of global businesses? How can the Minister assure hard-working fishing families that this will never happen again?
Wales being let down by Westminster is not an unfamiliar tale, but the responsibility for quotas was transferred to Cardiff. The Welsh Government could have made a stand for Welsh fishing and moved to install a moratorium on the sale of any more fishing quotas for businesses outside Wales, as the Scottish Government did in 2014. Instead, after we have left the EU and the withdrawal Act kicks in—with the consent of the Labour Government in Cardiff, I hasten to add—Wales will have gifted back to Westminster the legal capacity to do that.
I seek clarity on the following points. How will the Minister consult the devolved Administrations and what will be the nature of the joint decision-making mechanisms that he surely intends to establish? How does he intend to ensure that consent means consent and not really just the right to be told? If, as appears to be the case, the Welsh Government will now have some responsibility for all Welsh waters—namely from the coast to 6 miles, from there to 12 miles and now, at last, to the Welsh median line—this is indeed to be welcomed. I ask whether the financial resources will also reflect these additional waters. How will maritime and fisheries funding allocations be allocated after 2020 and can he confirm that that will be needs-based?
The reality of the Government’s position is that fishing opportunities and the withdrawal agreement’s political declaration remain utterly uncertain. How much of the fishing fleet’s livelihood are the Government happy to barter? Fishing communities seek clarity and certainty. The Minister’s Government presently offer scant comfort.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a great honour to be able to speak in this very important debate. As has previously been said, this is the first time for many decades that this Chamber has been able to debate primary legislation relating to our fisheries.
The fishing communities that I have the honour of representing have a long-standing and proud tradition of fishing that goes back many, many generations. In fact, many of today’s fishermen are the sons and grandsons of fishermen. I have two primary fishing communities in my constituency: in Newquay and in Mevagissey. The fishing port of Mevagissey is the second largest in Cornwall and, in many ways, is doing well and is growing. The age of its fishermen is younger than average, and those fishermen are active and looking to the future. I remind the Secretary of State again that he did offer to meet the fishermen of Mevagissey. Virtually every time I speak to them, they remind me that this offer was made, so it would be incredibly good if he came sooner rather than later.
It is a sad but well-established fact that our fishing communities have not fared well under the common fisheries policy. The industry was sacrificed in the 1970s as a bargaining chip when we joined the Common Market, and that sense of betrayal still runs very deep within our fishing communities. We should not under- estimate how strongly those feelings are still felt today. Therefore, it is understandable that many fishermen in Cornwall are still suspicious of the Government. Although some good commitments have been made to our fishing communities in recent months, it is absolutely vital that we see those words turned into actions and firm decisions and that we do not let down our fishing communities once again.
The CFP has failed effectively to manage our fish stocks and has all but destroyed the economic competitiveness of our UK fishing industry. Around two thirds of all fish caught in UK waters are now caught by non-UK vessels, and, of some fish stocks, around 85% of the quota is awarded to non-UK boats. By taking back control of our fishing waters and by taking back control of our quotas, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put right the wrongs that have been imposed on our fishing industry.
I welcome the clear commitments made by the Government and by the Prime Minister personally when she came, infamously, to Mevagissey last May, at the very start of the election campaign, before our manifesto was launched. She met the fishermen and made some very clear commitments to them, and that was welcome, but it is absolutely vital that we do not again sell out our fishermen.
We are an island nation, and being an island nation presents a number of big challenges. One of the huge opportunities that we have as an island nation should be access to our fishing waters and to reap the rewards that that provides for our nation. That is what leaving the EU and leaving the common fisheries policy will enable us to do. I therefore very much welcome this Bill. It is essential that it is enacted so that we have the mechanism in place to manage our own fishing waters once we leave the EU. This will mean that we will have everything in place to do that if we do end up with a clean global Brexit come the end of March.
We need to look carefully at the matter of discards, which is the most common concern raised by my local fishermen. Discards are an utter and shameful waste of our fishing stocks. As other hon. Members have said, those rules mean that we are not able to know exactly what the stocks are, so it is important that we get it right and put the mechanisms in place to deal with the issue.
I have great admiration for both the Secretary of State and the Fisheries Minister, and I know that they are very much on the fishermen’s side, so I would say to them that we have to ensure that we see through the commitments we have made to our fishing industry that we do not sell it out again for access to markets and that we give it the fair and right opportunity that it should have to reap the rewards of our UK fishing waters.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Before I get into my speech, I will confess my three interests in this Bill. First, like the Secretary of State, I had family—my grandfather, not my father—who worked in the fishing industry. My grandfather worked behind the wet fish counter in Tonypandy and in Barry. Secondly, I am a very keen angler myself; and thirdly, I am implacably opposed to Brexit, and this Bill and the fisheries debate more broadly is the greatest example I can think of to demonstrate the hollowness of the claims that were made by the Brexiteers, such as the Secretary of State, as well as the hollowness of the promises that he is holding out again today to fishing industries and fishermen right across the country.
On both sides of the Brexit debate, the issue of fisheries illustrates what a dreadful discussion we had, because the remain side ought to admit that the CFP is one of the great failures of the EU. It does not work environmentally and it has not worked for the fishing industry in our country or elsewhere, and we should acknowledge that. We should not seek to stay in or replicate the CFP; we should be trying to reform it. But the biggest deception, of course, was on behalf of the Brexiteers: the promise that leaving the CFP would allow us to take back control of our seas. It is a wonderful phrase, which we have heard from the Secretary of State today, but the seas that we are talking about—the Irish sea, the North sea and the English channel—are shared with the countries on the other side of them. The fish we get out of those seas are sometimes landed and processed on the shores on the other side of those seas, and the markets we rely on are very often on the other side of those seas. That exposes the hollowness of both the Brexiteers’ claims and many promises made in the Secretary of State’s rhetoric today.
The hollowness is also exposed by a paucity of detail because, frankly, this Bill is long on rhetoric and short on detail. The reason that it is short on detail is that very little is agreed in respect of the future of our fisheries. There are lots of promises, as there were lots of promises in the White Paper in July this year, but the truth is that almost nothing is determined in respect of the future nature of our fisheries and of our agreement. In fact, throughout the withdrawal agreement, it is very clear that nothing is agreed. On page 311 of the deal, it is stated very clearly that
“(‘fishery and aquaculture products’), shall not be covered…unless an agreement”
is established. I think that the Minister wants to get that agreement by June 2020, but there is no guarantee that that will happen. As many fellow Brexit supporters of the Secretary of State have pointed out to him and to Front Benchers today, in the intervening period—during the transition period—we will actually lose influence and leverage in respect of our fisheries.
Article 130 on page 206 of the withdrawal agreement states:
“As regards the fixing of fishing opportunities within…the transition period, the United Kingdom shall be consulted in respect of the fishing opportunities…the Union shall offer the opportunity to the United Kingdom to provide comments on the Annual Communication”.
It also says that the UK shall be invited to the “relevant…fora”. We will be consulted with, we will have the opportunity to comment and we will be invited, but we will not actually be official participants in the decision making—the key decisions on the size and scale of the quotas which, according to the Secretary of State, we ought to see taken back under our control. All that is a clear indication of the hollowness of the claim that we would exercise greater sovereignty as a result of our leaving the European Union.
The Secretary of State, I am not sure whether deliberately, spoke out of both sides of his mouth today. He said that we are going to be taking back control in order to exercise greater observance of the sustainable yields that we have ignored for many, many years when in the common fisheries policy, and at the same time he said that we were going to be increasing our fish catch. Those two things, I say respectfully to him, cannot both be true. We cannot, in future, be more observant of the scientific advice about what are the sustainable yields we can take from our stocks while at the same time taking more fish from our seas. That is the biggest and most egregious example of the fib that is being told to fishermen across this country. I hope that during the passage of the Bill the Secretary of State will clear up some of these misconceptions and is very honest with people about what Brexit could mean.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), because he referred to the restrictions of other oceans and other controlled waters, but I can tell him that actually, when a fisherman from Newlyn launches out to sea, they have 200 miles to go before they get into any sort of international waters. At the moment, as we have heard, they are allowed to access only 7% of the cod in those waters, and so it simply makes mathematical sense that if they get more share, they will get more fish.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) said, it is a long time since Members—a Member for St Ives, for example—have had the privilege of talking about primary legislation around a UK fisheries Bill. I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the Minister for—certainly in the case of the Minister—their repeated visits to Newlyn. They were both visitors to the largest Cornish fishing community by a considerable measure. I would suggest, although I do not want to upset my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, that the tragedy of discard is that we probably discard more fish from Newlyn fishermen than are caught in Mevagissey. However, that is something we can discuss on another day.
Derek Thomas
There is great quality fish from Newlyn as well. Actually, that is an important point. The quality of fish caught around the Cornish coast is significant, and it is in demand from Europe. I therefore have no doubt that we will get to the point where Europe will continue to want and buy Cornish fish.
My local fishermen welcome this Bill, broadly because its primary objective is to promote sustainable fisheries management. They know more than anyone that sustainable fisheries management arrangements are the right thing, demonstrating a respect for the oceans and its contents and delivering a future for an essential food source and for skilled employment. They know that the UK, particularly Cornwall, is already a world leader in sustainable fisheries management. Fishermen in Cornwall, through the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, already work on many fronts to promote conservation initiatives and safe working practice and to demonstrate their commitment to realising a sustainable future.
It is important to remind the House of the benefits of Brexit to our fishermen. We will be an independent coastal state. We will have control of access to UK waters and ensure that British fishermen get a fair deal and are able to catch more because of a commitment to sustain stocks. We will revive coastal communities. Perhaps the Secretary of State could talk to the Prime Minister, because we are concerned about permanent workers from overseas potentially being excluded through a new immigration policy, which would have a detrimental impact on our fishing sector. It would be great to get clarity on whether people from overseas who work full-time in fishing can keep their jobs. We will also be able to maintain and develop the UK industry’s role as world leaders in sustainable fisheries policy.
The Government must not extend the common fisheries policy beyond 2020 or adopt an interim arrangement allowing the EU to set rules binding UK fisheries in any sort of extended implementation period or backstop. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must confirm today that the Government will not sacrifice the potential of Brexit for the British fishing industry in any way and that they will reject any future proposals from the EU that seek to wrestle away control of access to UK waters. Should the Government back down on their promises, the Bill cannot be delivered, and we will have failed and betrayed our fishing sector.
My fishermen are watching this closely, and they understand the risks of not getting this right. They are paying their mortgages, feeding their families and paying their taxes because of the fishing they do day in, day out, and we should take that seriously when considering their futures.
The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation has set out three simple asks of the Government. First, it asks the Government to establish a formal advisory council to guide policy, promote collaboration between central Government, devolved Administrations and the industry and allow for ongoing dialogue in a naturally variable industry. It is important that fishermen and fishing experts are sat around the table in that advisory council.
Secondly, the CFPO asks the Secretary of State to ensure a practical approach to sustainable fisheries management. Maximum sustainable yields—a key part of the regime—could fail in the same way that the CFP has failed, so it is important that we look at many other options to secure a good, sustainable fishing industry. Finally, the CFPO asks the Secretary of State to set out a dispute resolution mechanism, so that when things go wrong, they can be properly resolved.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak in any fishing debate, as I have done every year that I have been in the House. I would like to begin by thanking the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee for the incredible work it has put into the Bill. It was a pleasure to work on submissions to the inquiry, as a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and to have the Committee over to Northern Ireland to see at first hand the success and the needs of the industry in Portavogie in my constituency. I was also pleased to have input from Ardglass and Kilkeel, and I am pleased to see a representative from the Anglo North Irish Fish Producers Organisation in the Gallery, to oversee what we are saying.
I have been contacted by a number of fishermen and fishing bodies, and all have welcomed certain aspects of the Bill, such as the powers for the UK to set quotas and control access over who may fish in UK waters and under what conditions, the expectation of bilateral agreements with the EU, Norway and others with which it shares stocks and the Secretary of State in a position to endorse the content of those agreements. It is important to get that right.
It is also important to ensure that the principle of equal access is upheld when issuing any additional quota gained from leaving the EU. It is essential for Northern Ireland that quota is allocated according to individual vessels active in the fishery or by existing fixed quota allocations. While there is support for the principle of equal access for UK vessels to operate in any of the waters within the UK exclusive economic zone, there is some concern that these freedoms could be compromised if devolved Administrations introduce their own separate measures. Other Members have said that, and I want to reinforce it.
Jim Shannon
No, I will not.
I would like to briefly talk about clause 10. I would add that all licences granted under the authority of the Bill—in other words, those issued from the date of the Act coming into force onwards—are non-transferable. I am an advocate of reviewing the licence system, and I believe that it would be a mistake for us to fail to close the loophole that caused massive issues to begin with.
The Bill sets ambitions and measures to minimise discards. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations is one body that contacted me to highlight the belief that reducing discards is an important element of sustainable fisheries management, and it is pleased to see the Government taking a positive and workable approach. Much good work has been done. The Government should establish a formal advisory council to guide policy, promote collaboration between central Government, devolved Administrations and the industry and allow for ongoing dialogue in a naturally variable industry.
It is understandable that the Bill refers to maximum sustainable yields as an approach to sustainable fisheries management. However, if MSY is set as a rigid timebound objective, it will, as with the CFP, prove unworkable. Instead, the UK must develop an approach to sustainable fisheries management that learns from the failings of the CFP. The NFFO is calling for a more balanced and workable approach, with oversight from the advisory council, and I concur with that.
There is still nothing in the Bill to address the access to labour issues. The natural counter-argument is that labour is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is in fact a critical pillar of the sustainability objective. I believe we can and must address that matter through the Bill, and an amendment can and should be tabled to incorporate access to labour.
I see the Minister in his place, and just for the record, he and I have had discussions on various occasions about the voisinage agreement, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned earlier. We have brought it up on every occasion we have met in this House, and in our meetings the voisinage agreement has been at the forefront of my mind and of his. He has told us in the past that it is his intention to pursue this legal matter through the courts and to ensure the waters covered by the voisinage agreement that belong to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are returned. Will the Minister respond to that in a very positive way?
In my last minute, I want to quote the words of a constituent:
“Setting aside the complex and controversial questions surrounding parliamentary approval for the withdrawal agreement, much still hinges on the negotiations ahead. The UK’s legal status has altered and its leverage in fisheries negotiations has dramatically changed but unless that new status is used to address the gross distortions in quota shares, fishermen will question what it has all been for.”
My constituent says there are
“many examples of where the UK has been systematically disadvantaged by the CFP over 40 years. To deliver the fair share of fishing opportunities”,
all the fishermen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
“in this second round, will expect our negotiators”—
we look to those who will be responsible for this—
“to be as tough, astute, and hard-nosed as they need to be to realise the benefits of our new status as an independent coastal state.”
Good times are ahead. The good times will come, and they will come with some abundance after 29 March. We look forward to it.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Indeed, I am doing so for the first time.
We are all aware that since joining what was then the EEC, the UK fishing industry has steadily declined from landings of l million tonnes to about 400,000 tonnes today. Despite this, the industry still contributes £1.3 billion to the UK economy and provides over 34,000 jobs nationwide.
In the south-east, the industry is small, representing just over 1% of the jobs in the sector, but there are communities where fishing is the lifeblood of the town. Selsey in my constituency services much of the surrounding coast, including Chichester harbour, bringing in an annual landings turnover of £l million and boasting the best crab in the country. Selsey’s small but active fishing industry has about 15 boats, mostly of under- 10 metre vessels but with four of over-10 metres. Similarly, across the UK our fishing fleet predominantly comprises smaller vessels. Only about a fifth of our vessels are over-10 metres long. However, today we can see large vessels from France and Belgium fishing just 6 miles off the coast of Selsey. The vast majority of our local fishing is done within a 10-mile radius, so this is rather unwelcome.
We hope that change is on the horizon, as this Bill will set out the framework to make the UK an independent coastal state once again. With that, comes the ability to control our exclusive economic zone, reinstating our sovereign right to explore, exploit, conserve and manage our seas. This change will mean that foreign vessels will have to seek permission to fish here. In cases such as Selsey, I hope that will also mean we can provide some breathing space so our local fleet can access near-shore fishing grounds without competition.
One of the biggest changes brought about by this Bill will be our ability to implement a fair quota system, as currently it is anything but. As has been mentioned, in the English channel, the French take 83% of the cod; by contrast, UK fishers can take only 9%. It was therefore no surprise to hear the French President and his Europe Minister calling over the past few days for guaranteed access to our waters.
The UK has led the way to sustainable fisheries. We have been instrumental in setting rates at levels that will deliver a maximum sustainable yield by 2020, ensuring that species numbers remain stable for future generations. Self-regulation provides the opportunity to be more flexible and responsive to species population changes, allowing fishermen to take advantage of increases in fish populations. It has already been suggested that quotas for rays and skates could be increased by as much as 20%.
A big cause for concern within the industry is how to get more people into fishing. A New Economics Foundation report has highlighted that one of the biggest barriers for new entries is cost. New fishers willing to join the industry are required to purchase vessels with existing track records if they are to access quotas. That is a significant obstacle for those wishing to enter the profession, and it has the tendency to mean that older vessels are overvalued. I hope that in the near future the Government can work with organisations such as the NFFO to establish taster days and promote apprenticeships in this vital industry, which we can and should regenerate.
This debate is not about the disadvantage of the past but the opportunity of the future. The change ahead of us will reinvigorate our fishing industry and create prosperity for coastal communities, while continuing to ensure our fisheries are sustainable for future generations. I believe we can do all this and more, if we develop strategies to get more people into the industry who will help to bring in a new era of growth for our fishing industry.
British fisherman have faced decades of disadvantage, but by ensuring that our seas are once again sovereign we will turn the tides. I will end with a quotation from the president of the NFFO, Tony Delahunty, as he is a constituent of mine. He said:
“The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation’s view is that the withdrawal and future agreement…is an extremely important first step towards a new future for the UK as an independent coastal state and are keen to ensure that there are no links between fishing rights and trade in future negotiations.”
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan). I, too, welcome the Bill as it is a clear indication that, after 40 years, we will leave the EU in March, and the UK will once again become an independent coastal state, responsible for managing its own waters. In Newhaven in my constituency, the fishing industry has been in decline for decades. A once thriving fishing port now sees its local fishermen away for long periods, often working for larger fishing fleets and unable to make a living independently. That is the legacy of the CFP.
The Bill provides a ray of hope for the industry, but let us be under no illusion: the changes in the Bill cannot be negotiated away as part of the withdrawal agreement or future trading relationship arrangements. Failure to secure the contents of the Bill will consign the UK fishing industry to the annals of history. I welcome many of the measures in the Bill, but particular highlights for me are the provision revoking the automatic access rights of EU vessels and the new powers for the UK to set catch limits, revoking EU powers to set EU quotas for our waters.
I have some concerns, however, that I wish to raise with the Minister. While the Bill will restore control of our waters, many people are concerned that the withdrawal agreement and, in particular, the future trading relationship paper could override the Bill and that countries such as France and Spain could demand access in future negotiations. In the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we heard evidence during our fishing inquiry that the UK will remain in the CFP until 31 December 2020, but we will leave the EU before that. I made the point to the Secretary of State that we have concerns that although the Minister may attend the annual fisheries negotiation in December 2019, he will not have a say to ensure that our fishing rights are not overruled in the transition period. It is really important to have clarity on that point. I would welcome being wrong about it, but we are nervous.
As my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) have said, we would also like the reassurance of the Bill including the date when we will actually leave. We want to see the date of 31 December 2020 written into the Bill. We would also like to see the insertion of an economic link into the Bill so that we are clear what we mean by “British”. Fishing for Leave has suggested that any British vessel should be 60% UK crewed and 60% UK-owned, retaining 60% of the catch landed. It is vital to ensure compliance with the term “British” if we are to deliver economic benefits to the communities we have heard so much about today. It is essential that we avoid multinationals buying up our entitlement.
Clauses 9 and 10 will grant powers to the devolved Administrations, but Northern Ireland does not have a devolved Administration, and it could be a while before one is restored. We would like reassurance that while Northern Ireland does not have an Assembly, civil servants will be given powers to prepare for the implementation of the Bill while an Executive is restored.
Following on from the points made by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) about the voisinage agreement, the historical reciprocal arrangements are not in place and fishermen in Northern Ireland are suffering as a result. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said to the Select Committee this morning that that was a matter for DEFRA, so I am putting it back to DEFRA Ministers now. Either we need to challenge the Republic of Ireland Government to open up those fishing waters to fishermen in Northern Ireland, or in this Bill we can take back control and say that the Republic of Ireland cannot access UK waters until that dispute is resolved. I would very much appreciate it if the Secretary of State or the Minister were to comment on that. I will be grateful if these issues can be addressed either in Committee or on Report so that we do not have to table our own amendments.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is a pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate. Similarly to when we considered the Agriculture Bill earlier in the Session, this is the first opportunity for this Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament to debate a future policy—this time for our fishermen and fishing industry. Communities such as Buckie, Cullen, Lossiemouth and Burghead do not have the same number of fishing boats as they once did, but they still have an extremely strong link to the fishing industry and they look at our debates in this Chamber very closely.
I very much support this enabling Bill, which has widespread support throughout the industry. The Ministers and their team have done a good job in bringing it to this stage. We all want to ensure that we have control over our waters and regenerate the coastal communities that have suffered in the past. There is a great deal to welcome in the Bill.
I want to spend a bit of time looking at the utter tosh—that is the only way I can describe it—that we have heard from the Scottish National party during this debate. We heard from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who is not in the Chamber. He took us back to 1972, 11 years before I was even born. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) took us back a number of years ago when Alex Salmond was putting forward legislation. The SNP has not mentioned him recently, so it is interesting to hear his name used again. In an intervention, I took the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith back to last year’s general election—the most recent election—to find the most recent credible position of the SNP. The SNP’s position then, on which all their candidates stood for election, was to go back into the common fisheries policy, and she confirmed that in response to my intervention.
Douglas Ross
I am sorry, but because of the time—[Interruption.] I will come to the hon. Lady, who confirmed that the SNP’s position—
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), but is now refusing to take an intervention from her. Is that in order, Mr Deputy Speaker, or a convention of the House? [Interruption.] Courtesy and decency.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
The answer is yes, it is in order. Members do not have to give way. What is normal is that if you do mention a Member’s name and that Member then comes back, it is up to the Member speaking to decide whether to give way. Normally, they do give way, but I cannot force any individual Member; it is up to Mr Ross whether he wishes to.
Douglas Ross
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) has a deaf ear, because I said I would let the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith intervene. I will come to her in a minute, if she has patience.
The hon. Lady confirmed that the SNP’s position is to go back into the CFP on re-joining the European Union but, she said, in their terms. I would like to give way to her so that she can tell us what those terms are. What is the SNP going to tell the EU that it would like to negotiate on the CFP, and what is it going to give away? A negotiation needs give and take, so what would it give to the European Union on that?
Deidre Brock
I would just like to quote directly from page 29 of the SNP’s 2017 general election manifesto:
“We will continue, in all circumstances, to demand the scrapping or fundamental reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and support Scottish control of Scottish fisheries, as we have done for many years.”
Douglas Ross
That is page 29, but there is absolutely no information on how the SNP would do that or what it would do. It is absolutely farcical—you have no plan for how you will go forward on the CFP; you will simply go back into it and do as you are told.
Other things we have not heard are—[Interruption.] Oh, come on, please. The hon. Lady mentioned nothing about the Scottish Government’s report that says that the fishing industry will benefit from £540 million and see an extra 5,000 jobs in Scotland as we come out of the CFP. The SNP will not mention that, because it wants to go back into the CFP.
I agree with a lot of things said by a number of Members—including the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—about the problems that the Government’s immigration policies are causing for fishermen. I held a Westminster Hall debate on the matter at which a number of Members spoke. [Interruption.] If SNP Members would stop barracking me, I may be able to answer their questions. This is something for which I believe there is cross-party support. I believe that the Government could make small changes to ensure that we get the right people into our—
Michael Gove
Is it not an unerring truth in this House that anyone who speaks the truth gets barracked by Scottish National party Members? They are not interested in debate, the facts, or answering the questions that my hon. Friend is putting; they are interested only in a separatist circus that threatens the jobs and livelihoods of the people they fail to represent.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on an intervention.
Douglas Ross
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that intervention because—
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Government Minister who has been asked three times for help in lobbying the Home Office about this problem for Scottish fisheries, but who has done nothing about it, to get up and not mention that, yet to make a political point on that very issue?
Mr Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
Douglas Ross
I just love how we rile SNP Members so much that they have to make fake points of order to try to disrupt the flow of my speech. However, they will not disrupt the flow of my speech when I am criticising the SNP.
I will mention the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar again. He referred to a Westminster Hall debate in which a lot of Conservative MPs spoke. The reason why we heard from a lot of Conservative MPs—and Scottish Conservative MPs—was that the SNP lost so many seats in Scotland in so many coastal communities. The SNP lost 21 seats in Scotland because it would not stand up for the fishermen in our country, and we see exactly what it is doing. Those people know that Scottish Conservatives will be standing up for them—[Interruption.] I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman as he continues to speak from a sedentary position.
It is extremely important in this debate that we have a robust exchange of views. While there is much in the Bill to support, I have to use this speech as an opportunity to raise my concerns about the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. Many Members have set out their concerns about the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, and particularly the first bullet point on page 4 of the outline political declaration. I have to say that I share those concerns. I worry that we may be out of the common fisheries policy but still be in some way tied to a common fisheries policy. I could not support that. I said at a public meeting in Buckie back in March—it was widely reported in both The Banffshire Advertiser and The Northern Scot, so I am sure those at the highest level of government are aware of my concerns—that if a deal did not deliver for fishermen in Moray, in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, I could not support it. My position today remains the same.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Thank you very much for letting me speak so early in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not quite know how I am going to follow that last speech—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is lucky I have called him at all, given the time.
Andrew Bowie
I am fully aware of that, Mr Deputy Speaker—I know I am chancing my luck. I start by paying tribute to two individuals who, when I was advising on fisheries issues in the European Parliament, did much to educate me in the world of fisheries, which to many is a foreign language. One of them is sitting in the Gallery this afternoon—Simon Collins, the CEO of the Shetland Fishermen’s Federation—and the other is a constituent of mine from the beautiful fishing village of Stonehaven, Mr Mike Park, who today received an OBE at the palace for his services to marine conservation. It is therefore more of an honour than usual, for professional, personal and geographical reasons, to speak in this debate, as we set a new and historic course, for the first time since 1973 setting our own regulations for management of the seas and determining who may fish in our waters and on what terms.
I strongly associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, outwith this place, has said he is not interested in playing the resignation soap opera. [Laughter.] No, he is not. He has not resigned because, unlike SNP Members, he cares about fishermen and is working hard on this issue. He thinks it far too important to play politics with, which is something I wish the SNP would remember. As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said, it might be why there are far fewer of them in the House than there were before the general election. If there was ever a time to focus on outcomes for Britain’s and Scotland’s fishing industry, that time is now. We face a sea of opportunity. The House today has a chance to develop a tangible legal framework in which the UK can operate as an independent coastal state, free from the restrictions of the hated CFP.
I am conscious that today’s debate is on the Fisheries Bill, not wider EU relations—not that anyone would know it—but for the Bill to be worth the paper it is printed on, colleagues need to take seriously the reaction across the channel to the withdrawal agreement. As was reported in yesterday’s Times, the French, Spanish, Belgian, Danish and Portuguese Governments want the Commission to reopen negotiations on fishing and impose tougher level playing field rules, and according to reports, and as confirmed by conversations I had today with British fisheries advisers in Brussels, France is leading a charge to guarantee a fisheries agreement giving French and other European fishing fleets access to British waters. I think that everybody in the House would agree that this is completely unacceptable. The Prime Minister has robustly opposed this from day one, and she needs the support of everyone in the House to continue to do so.
This is a good Bill. We are taking back control of our waters, but as it makes clear, we are not pulling up the drawbridge or building some imaginary sea wall down the North sea. We will continue to work with our European neighbours, but we will be negotiating with them as an independent coastal state in the same way as Norway and Iceland. Clauses 7 and 8 make that very clear, by revoking the existing shared equal access policy, setting conditions on non-British boats entering the UK exclusive economic zone and giving us real teeth as an independent coastal state.
As for those shrill siren voices in the environmental lobby suggesting that British control of our own waters will lead to a diminution of standards or a reduced commitment to the marine environment, I would remind them that it was the British Government who were most vocal on the need to implement a discard ban across the EU and who have driven up standards and pushed other countries to be as committed to sustainable fisheries as us and our fishing industry. The UK has always advocated a science-based approach to fisheries management and argued that total allowable catches should be in line with the CFP’s objective and be proposed and set at levels that are at least moving towards maximum sustainable yield-based exploitation rates. That said, DEFRA and the devolved Assemblies could do more to help fishermen and fishing organisations at the quayside to implement some of these environmental policies, as our MEPs demanded in 2015.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Does the hon. Gentleman still stand by the words he uttered on 27 February 2018, at about 3.22 pm—as Hansard helpfully tells us? He said:
“That is why we cannot let fishermen down now, and why before my election I signed a pledge committing me to do what I can to ensure that the UK is taken out of the common fisheries policy at the earliest available opportunity. That means 11 pm on 29 March 2019.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 304WH.]
Does he stand by those words?
Andrew Bowie
Of course, I still stand by those words. We will leave the CFP on 29 March 2019 and will be negotiating as an independent coastal state from December 2020, none of which would be the case if the SNP had its way. If it did, we would be back in the EU, as full members of the CFP, because—I hate to educate the SNP—a country cannot be a member of the EU and not a member of the CFP, with all that that entails. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I urge all colleagues to back this fantastic Bill, as I am being coughed at by the Whip to my left.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to sum up what has been a fantastic debate with good contributions on both sides of the House, and I echo the words expressed across the House about those fishermen who risk their lives to catch the fish we put on our tables. In particular, I add my thanks to the rescue services, the coastguard and the RNLI, who are true heroes indeed.
We do not oppose the Bill. We know that the UK needs a fishing system outside the common fisheries policy after we leave the EU—we do not dispute that—but it is clear that the Government still have some way to go before the Bill satisfies both sides of the House. The Labour party intends to work with the Government to ensure we have a good Bill that is fit for purpose. Fisheries Bills do not often trouble the House of Commons so we need to make it a good one.
There are some good things in the Bill, but there are far too many missing pieces. It smacks of a measure hurriedly prepared and pushed out too quickly by a Government who were aware of the approaching deadline of Brexit. It needed more work before its publication, and it would have benefited from a round of pre-legislative scrutiny, but as Ministers chose not to do that, I think they should not be surprised that there have been so many proposals for amendments today and that there will be more in Committee.
The Bill gives the Government a chance to make real the promises made by the Leave campaign. So far, big promises have not been matched by delivery. Fishing communities, in Plymouth and across the country, do not want grand promises; they need honesty, and clarity from the Government, and they want those to be delivered.
Luke Pollard
I am sorry, but there have been enough interventions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) made a superb opening speech, but I want to reiterate the concerns that have been expressed by Members on both sides of the House.
Luke Pollard
I will keep going. I apologise, but the hon. Lady has had enough chances.
The Bill constitutes a missed opportunity—a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to start afresh and create a truly world-class, sustainable fisheries policy. We need to get this right, but as it stands, the Bill fails in a number of critical ways. It fails to provide a fair deal for our small fleet, or attempt to break up large monopolies in the fishing industry. It fails to regenerate coastal communities and provide the renaissance that our coastal towns need. It fails to create a vision for the UK to have the most sustainable fisheries in the world. It fails to ensure frictionless access to the single market; indeed, given the Prime Minister’s bad deal, it poses the risk of tariffs on our fish, and we do not want tax on our fish. It also fails to ensure that there is supply-chain fairness across the board.
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), while in theory the Bill gives us greater access to our waters, it says nothing meaningful about redistributing quota more fairly across the British fleet. The fixed quota allocation system has been heavily criticised on both sides of the House during the debate, and it is unfair, but it has not been updated since the 1990s. If I had not been updated since the 1990s, I would still have bleached blond hair, wear cargo trousers and believe that wet-look gel is a good idea. Times change, and so must our fishing regulation. As a result of the existing system, ownership of quota has become increasingly consolidated in the hands of a few, and we need to change that. We need to distribute quota so that it goes back into the hands of the many.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said earlier, more than a quarter of the UK’s fishing quota is owned or controlled by just five families on the Sunday Times rich list. Quotas should be allocated according to transparent and ecological criteria, to the benefit of fishing communities. For example, a greater share should be offered in return for compliance with relevant regulations, participation in data gathering and good science, full monitoring and recording of catches, compliance with discard rules, and the application of high standards of workers’ rights, welfare and, especially, marine safety. Given the loss of two trawlers from Plymouth since my election, and a death in both losses, I am disappointed that the Bill does not contain more about enhanced marine safety as a qualification for additional quota. We need to reward best practice, not ignore that problem.
The UK has always had the ability to allocate quota to reward particular types of fishing practice or to support broader social and economic gains, but has chosen not to do so in a broad, meaningful way. Ministers have reallocated too little quota, although they have reallocated some. Labour wants smaller boats to be given a greater share of quota after Brexit. Small boats are the backbone of our fishing industry, the small and medium-sized enterprises of the sector, and they need our backing. The small-scale fishing fleet generally uses low-impact gear, and creates significantly more jobs per tonne of fish landed than the large-scale sector. In the UK, the under 10-metre small-scale fleet represents more than 70% of English fishing boats and 65% of direct employment in fishing, and it should be supported.
We have heard that recreational fishing would have huge potential with better management, and I agree. There is not enough in the Bill that values that sector—not yet, at least. More recreational fishing and more sustainable fisheries depend on better science to plug the gap in data. That means more baseline stock levels for non-quota species such as cuttlefish. If ours are to be the most sustainable fisheries in the world, we need to have the best science in the world. Indeed, the data deficiency that we currently see in our fisheries is one of the reasons why many of our fisheries cannot market their fish as sustainable. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), we need to ensure that maximum sustainable yield is achieved by 2020, and that that date is put in the Bill.
There have been many good contributions from across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) mentioned the governance gap and the too frequent reliance on Henry VIII powers in this Bill, and that needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) talked about doubling the size of the co-operative economy, and in fishing we have a proud record of co-operatives; that should be supported. We need to ensure not only that EMFF funds are replaced—with every single penny replaced, not cut—but also that the other funding arrangements, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, are put in place. Local government need to ensure that they have the funds to invest in our fishing as well. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, we must make sure we have a passion about fish, not just a passion about fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) said we need to talk more about processing, which has the lion’s share of employment in the fishing sector.
My party does support this Bill, but we believe it needs more work in a considerable number of areas. Serious concerns have been raised on both sides of this House about fairness, funding, sustainability and trade. The fishing industry has been given grand promises by the Environment Secretary, and many others besides, only to have some of them broken time after time. While I believe that the Fisheries Minister is honest in his efforts, I fear that those higher up in his Government are selling him out and that our fishing industries have been sold out, too. That must not be the case with this Bill: no more betrayals; no more grand promises. To the Minister I say be up front and frank with fishers about the difficulties and opportunities, because I have not met a fisherman who is not equally frank, up front and honest in their response.
I genuinely believe that there is scope for this Bill to be improved with cross-party working, and I put the Government on notice that if we cannot achieve those improvements, they should not necessarily count on our support in future parliamentary stages.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
We have had a good debate with many lively exchanges, particularly during the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the DEFRA officials who have worked incredibly hard to get the Bill to this point, to our officials in the Marine Management Organisation, who have done considerable planning on enforcement, and to CEFAS, our science agency, which is truly the best in the world in fisheries science.
The Secretary of State was generous in giving way in his opening speech, and indeed the debate drifted some distance from the contents of the Bill. I will not be giving way, however, as I want to use the short time available to address as many points as possible.
I welcome the fact that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) supports the Bill. She made some specific points about reallocating quota. We have been clear in our White Paper that we want to move to a different method of allocating quota to the UK fleet. We have also set out proposals in the White Paper to allocate new quota on a different methodology so that it does not simply follow FQA—fixed quota allocation—unit allocations. In the longer term, we could obviously change the allocation keys on the existing FQAs, but the legal advice based on case law is that that would have to be done gradually over a period of time.
It is also important to note that some of the figures bandied about in terms of who owns what quota can be misleading, as there is a huge difference between the small inshore vessels, which are limited largely to the 0 to 12 mile zone, and the pelagic fleet, which has huge vessels with huge capital investment, and for which mackerel is by far the largest stock.
The hon. Lady made some points about sustainability and the discard ban set out in clause 1. She suggested that that is weaker than we have now, but I can tell her that the wording we use in clause 1 is largely borrowed directly from the EU regulation. We envisage that the joint fisheries statement that flows from that—it is a legal requirement and details of it are set out in schedule 1 to the Bill—will define how we will deliver those sustainability objectives. So the basis of clause 1 is borrowed from the existing EU requirements on sustainability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) raised the issue of enforcement capacity. We are doing work at the moment with Border Force, some of whose staff have been retrained to do fisheries duties. We also have additional vessels from the Royal Navy that are being tested at the moment, and we are in discussion with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency about aerial surveillance. So we are planning on having a significant increase in our enforcement capacity. My hon. Friend also mentioned the danger of the science being out of date. It is always a challenge with the science, but we do put observers on fisheries vessels, and our scientific models attempt to predict the future by looking at particular trends.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) mentioned the clause in the Bill that covers the selling of quota rights and said that the tendering and auction processes should be devolved. They are devolved, and the clause is absolutely explicit that it applies only to England. The licensing of foreign vessels is devolved, but we have said that, with the consent of the Scottish Government and others, the Marine Management Organisation might issue a single licence for the whole UK. Clearly, agreements that are made internationally would be a matter for the UK Government. The hon. Lady also suggested that Norway, being outside the European Union, was a victim of fax democracy and had no control over its fisheries. Nothing could be further from the truth. Norway is a serious player and an independent coastal state that controls access to its waters. It conducts its own negotiations on coastal states matters, unlike us; we are currently represented by the European Union.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) gave a passionate speech and raised the importance of allowing selective gear types. This is why we have a power in the Bill to enable us to change technical specifications expeditiously. He has long been an advocate of an effort-based approach. As I have said many times, there are some advantages to an effort-based regime, particularly with mixed fisheries and with the inshore fleet, but there are downsides, too. Generally speaking, a quota system makes the most sense for the pelagic fleet, while an effort-based regime could make more sense for a small inshore fleet. We have set out a proposal in our White Paper for further pilot schemes in this area, particularly for the inshore fleet, but it is not an area that we should rush. My right hon. Friend also asked for reassurance on the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, and I can confirm that UNCLOS will be the new legal baseline once we leave the European Union.
The hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and others raised the issue of tariff-free access for our trade, and of course we are going to be seeking that free trade agreement as part of our future economic partnership, but I would point out that we have a trade surplus in fisheries. We export about £1.3 billion but import £1.1 billion. Largely, the fish species that we export, particularly shellfish, tend to have lower tariffs, while the processed products, which we export far less of, are the ones that tend to have the higher tariffs. I have to say that the message from the processors we have spoken to is, “Don’t sell out the catching sector on our account.” I would really welcome such spirit and courage from other sectors of the economy.
My hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and for St Ives (Derek Thomas) mentioned the unfairness of existing relative stability shares as the allocation key, and we agree. We set out clearly in the White Paper our view that we should move to zonal attachment—that is, where the fish reside—as a fairer and more scientific basis for allocation. We are clear that that is the approach we will take.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) raised the issue of bluefin tuna. This is a complex issue and it is not specifically covered by the common fisheries policy—it is covered by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, which is a regional fisheries management organisation—but this is certainly something that we can consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) has more fishing in his constituency than any other Member in this House. He correctly identified the importance of maintaining access for leverage in negotiations. He also mentioned the issue of lobster and brown crab, which would be covered by the western waters regime but would largely be a matter for the Scottish Government.
In conclusion, the Bill is essential, whether we have a deal or no deal. It gives us the legal powers to control access, set quota and manage fisheries sustainability, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Fisheries Bill (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Fisheries Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday 19 December.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Fisheries Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fisheries Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(1) any expenditure incurred by the Marine Management Organisation in connection with the licensing of foreign fishing boats;
(2) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in giving, or in connection with giving, financial assistance to any person for purposes relating to—
(a) the improvement of the marine and aquatic environment;
(b) commercial aquaculture or commercial fish activities; or
(c) the promotion or development of recreational fishing;
(3) any other expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or the Marine Management Organisation.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Fisheries Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fisheries Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees, or other charges, under or by virtue of:
(a) the Act,
(b) the Fisheries Act 1981, or
(c) the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 and 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Investigatory Powers
That the draft Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2018, which were laid before this House on 11 October, be approved.
Dangerous Drugs
That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 17 October, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order, 23 October, and Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Electoral Commission
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Lord Gilbert of Panteg and Joan Walley as Electoral Commissioners with effect from 1 November 2018 for the period ending on 31 October 2022; and Alastair Ross as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 November 2018 for the period ending on 31 October 2020.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Infrastructure Planning
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Infrastructure Planning (Water Resources) (England) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 18 October, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Family Law
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 28 November (Standing Order No. 41A).
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the rules about hon. Members using another hon. Member’s place of birth as a line of attack in this Chamber. Earlier today, I intervened in the debate on the Fisheries Bill. When I sat down, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said from a sedentary position that I should go back and be an MP for Swindon. Now, I am all for robust debate, and I am proud of where I was born, but I understood that the reason we refer to each other by the names of our constituencies is that we are here to represent our constituents, not ourselves, and that therefore where we were born does not matter. I first fought for my seat in 2015 and have represented it since 2017, and I have fought for my constituents every single day. I ask for clarification, for all Members of the House, that whether they were born in Scotland and now represent a seat in England, or whether they were born in Northern Ireland or Australia and now represent a seat in Scotland, it does not matter, because what counts is where we want to be and what we do in this House—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. To be quite honest, that is not a point of order for me. What I will say, however, is that you have quite rightly clarified that if Members were allowed to represent only the constituency in which they were born, that would not be possible. Your opinion has been expressed and I think that we will leave it there.
Petitions
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The petition is about the asylum of Nelly Gelves and is from the people of North East Lincolnshire, including Great Grimsby.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of North East Lincolnshire,
Declares that the situation in Venezuela is desperate and inhumane; further that it would be wrong for an asylum seeker of 73 years old to be returned to political and religious repression in a country where she has practically no access to money, food and basic medicines.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the Asylum and Humanitarian Protection of Nelly Gelves in the UK to allow her to continue to live with her family.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002295]
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 2,734 residents in and around the village of Ryarsh, who are united against the allocation of a site on Roughetts Road for quarrying—there were a further 881 signatures online. For a village the size of Ryarsh, with only a few hundred residents, this shows how the whole community and many more have come together as one on the issue. Members of the community are in the Public Gallery, and I am sure that everyone in the House welcomes them. I am grateful to the Ryarsh protection group and to Ryarsh Parish Council for the months they have spent getting so many signatures. No doubt all those who signed will be pleased that Kent County Council’s draft minerals and waste local plan does not include the site.
The petition states:
The petition of Residents of Tonbridge and Malling,
Declares that land in Ryarsh, west of Roughetts Road is an unsuitable location for a quarry and Kent County Council should not allocate site M8 for sand extraction in their Minerals and Waste Local Plan
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Kent County Council to reconsider the allocation of a site for quarrying in Ryarsh, West Malling.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002296]
Tourism Industry: VAT Reduction
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am delighted to have obtained this Adjournment debate, albeit slightly postponed. I am grateful to the hon. Members who have remained in their place this evening to take part and to demonstrate that the question of a reduced rate of value added tax for the tourism sector is one that commands cross-party interest and support.
Tourism is the fourth largest sector of the UK economy today and, unlike most sectors, it has a reach across our economy and geography that is hard to equal. Certainly, it is a massively important, and increasingly important, industry in my constituency in the northern isles.
We have previously heard talk of voodoo economics, and tourism is a sector that allows us to apply a little judo economics—that is to say we can use the force of those things that would normally work against us to our favour. In Orkney and Shetland, we have a number of disadvantages due to our geography and the size and sparsity of our population, which are all things that, when it comes to tourism, make us an attractive destination. They are the things that make people want to come to see us in the northern isles. For us, tourism is an enormously important industry, and it is one that has grown massively in recent years.
Tourism also complements many indigenous traditional local industries. For years we have told our fishermen, our farmers and our crofters that they have to diversify or die, and they have taken that message to heart. This does not quite come within what I have to declare as an interest, but my parents’ family farm on Islay, off the west coast, is now in the region of 800 or 900 acres, and it not only supports cattle and sheep, as it has always done. Now, between my sister and my parents, the farm supports four individual self-catering units, which is a good example of how a traditional farming unit has been diversified to take significant income from tourism.
Obviously, tourism fits well with the profile of many communities such as ours, because it allows seasonal and part-time employment, which are both important in communities where people perhaps do not have just one job working 9 to 5, Monday to Friday. People are looking for a range of different income sources—as evidenced by the recent growth in the number of people working as tour guides in both Orkney and Shetland—and such employment offers that sort of opportunity.
In establishing the importance of tourism as an industry, in communities like mine right the way through to where I stand in one of the best-known tourism destinations in the country, the question arises of how we can best seek to allow the industry to grow itself.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. He has mentioned the attractiveness of his constituency to tourists. A VAT reduction would definitely benefit tourism in Northern Ireland. In 2017, some 2.6 million out-of-state visitors and more than 2 million Northern Ireland residents took an overnight trip in Northern Ireland, and during 2017 visitors from all markets combined to spend £926 million in Northern Ireland, up £76 million on the previous year. Does he agree that lowering VAT can only encourage more people to make the trip to Northern Ireland or to his constituency, luring people away from the Republic of Ireland by providing unrivalled beauty and attractions with unrivalled pricing? Indeed, the same could be said of the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman makes the point well. I am aware that Northern Ireland has a particular issue as it shares a land border, a fact that is fairly well discussed at the moment, with the Republic of Ireland. The Republic is one of those countries that in 2011—I will doubtless be corrected if I am wrong—cut their rate of VAT on tourism services to 9%. There is a particular sensitivity about the cross-border issues there, which may assist the hon. Gentleman in making the case, because there is a good working example on his own doorstop of the opportunities that are presented.
I know it is counter-intuitive in the Treasury to suggest that cutting taxes will bring an increased return in revenue, but there is good objective evidence to support that very proposition. I was a member of the Cabinet in 2015 when the Budget cut the rate of spirits duty by 2%. We did that expecting it would result in a reduced return of about £600 million, but we felt it was an important thing to do. In fact, the revenue return as a whole was significantly increased. So having taken the expected hit, we got a better return at the end of the day. This is the same thinking that underpins the Government’s reductions in corporation tax in recent years.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The Somerset Tourism Association and Visit Somerset have made representations to me on this matter and they very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a reduction in VAT on overnight accommodation and visitor attractions leaves more money in the pockets of visitors to spend on other things during their stay. So the money is not lost to the system; it grows the visitor economy even further.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman leads me on nicely to my next point. I was going to try to explain the way in which this reduced level of VAT feeds into other parts of the economy and the effects it can have. It is argued, with some force, that the reduction in VAT can lead to higher employment levels and better wages, which in turn leads to increased income tax receipts. The increased profitability of businesses, some of which are currently marginal and probably not even paying much tax at all, provides the opportunity for greater returns in corporation tax. Eventually, this feeds through to higher expenditure in other sectors—this is the so-called “tourism multiplier”, which goes back to the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is estimated that for an additional £1 spent in tourism we will see another 70p generated in spend in other sectors.
The European Union VAT laws currently require a broad uniformity of VAT and sales taxes across the whole EU, but there is a specific derogation for certain supplies. The list of these derogations is set out in annex III to the principal VAT directive 2006/112/EC. The three items of particular relevance to the tourism sector are items (7), (12) and (12a). For the benefit of the House, let me read those into the record. Item (7) specifies:
“admission to shows, theatres, circuses, fairs, amusement parks, concerts, museums, zoos, cinemas, exhibitions and similar cultural events and facilities”.
Item (12) specifies:
“accommodation provided in hotels and similar establishments, including the provision of holiday accommodation and the letting of places on camping or caravan sites”.
Item (12a) relates to
“restaurant and catering services, it being possible to exclude the supply of (alcoholic and/or non-alcoholic) beverages”.
It is important that the House understands that we make this case within a fairly clearly defined area, because the question of what constitutes tourism services, and other such issues, is already fairly well established in European law.
The principle of uniformity, subject to these derogations, is now stretched to breaking point. In Europe, only three countries—the United Kingdom, Denmark and Slovakia —continue to charge the full 20% rate of value-added or sales tax. Every other country charges a reduced rate. Some charge as low as the 5% minimum floor set by EU law, and they range right the way through to 15%. The rate in the Republic of Ireland has now been set at 9%, which has been of concern to operators in Northern Ireland and will doubtless affect the considerations of the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), who are sitting behind me.
I know how the Treasury likes to do these things— I have seen it for myself many times over the years—but I would like to hear from the Minister that there is a willingness in the Treasury to engage with a wider range of people and a wider range of stakeholders. The Cut Tourism VAT campaign commissioned Nevin Associates to produce analysis. Its modelling showed that a cut to 5%—the minimum allowed—could generate £5.3 billion in gains to the Treasury over 10 years.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument and I hope that the Treasury will listen sympathetically. He is right that reducing VAT on tourism would boost the economy, and it would also be a boost to gateways to the UK such as Gatwick airport in my constituency, where many tourists arrive from abroad and benefit the local community. It would certainly help to boost the economy further.
Mr Carmichael
That is a good point. In fact, as the representative of a slightly smaller gateway—a significant number of people come in through Kirkwall and Lerwick, especially on cruise ships in the summer months—I can see the opportunities to be had.
As I was saying, the Cut Tourism VAT campaign analysis found that there would be gains of £5.3 billion over 10 years. I hope that that would be subject to pretty robust scrutiny by the Treasury, but it should be taken not as the subject of argument or debate but as the starting point for a discussion between the Treasury and the sector. It seems to me that a significant body of both academic and sectoral opinion says that it would offer opportunities for our businesses to grow and for the Treasury to get more money as a consequence. I do not expect the Minister to stand up and say, “All right, on you go”—I suspect that that moment, were it ever to come, passed with the Budget—but there is still a wide range of opinion on this issue in the House and there is a wide range of support for it throughout the country. It would assist us all, Treasury included, if the Minister was prepared to open the lines of communication and engage with those of us who are making the case.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate and on his perseverance in ensuring that we have this opportunity to debate these important matters. He quite rightly raised the importance of tourism, of which the Government are extremely aware: 1.6 million people are employed in the sector. He made important points about the sheer reach across the economy of the tourist sector, right down to the very point that he raised in his own constituency of examples of farms where additional income is being raised through participating in tourist-related activity. The sector provides £66 billion to the UK economy and 3.8% of gross value added. He is also right that, at the moment, tourism is booming not just in his constituency, but across the United Kingdom. Last year, 2017, was a record year, with 39.2 million visitors to the UK, which was 4.3% up on 2016. Not only are more tourists coming, but they are spending more as well, with an even larger increase in the amount that they are spending.
It is important to put on the record the admiration that we as a Government have for the sector and the gratitude that we have for all those who work so hard in what is quite a tough industry—it is one of those sectors that has rather a nice, soft and fun feel to it, but we all appreciate that a lot of hard work goes on behind that. The Government not only recognise the importance of tourism, but are also there to support tourism. I cite three broad areas in which we do that. The first is to get the broader economic factors correct. As the House will know, we have had eight years of economic growth and the Office for Budget Responsibility is now projecting a further five years of growth. We have high levels of employment, low levels of unemployment and we are seeing inflation coming down towards its target as well. That is an important broader macroeconomic context in which we hold this debate and discuss tourism.
The second area is business in general. We have reduced tax on companies across the board from 28% in 2010 down to 17% in the coming couple of years.
James Heappey
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that one of the taxes that could really catalyse growth in our visitor economy, not just for tourism, but for business travel as well, is further reductions in air passenger duty, beyond the very welcome announcement in the Budget, because nothing, surely, can catalyse growth in our visitor economy more than further reductions in APD?
Mel Stride
APD is certainly one of those taxes that we, along with all others, constantly keep under review. My hon. Friend will have noticed the freezing in short-haul APD that occurred at the time of this Budget, but he is right that we seek to keep that and other taxes as low as we can.
We supported our high streets in our recent Budget by reducing business rates by some 30% for smaller retailers, which will be of great benefit to some of the coastal towns in particular that the right hon. Gentleman will be thinking of, I know, when he speaks about the importance of tourism to the economy.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. On the subject of coastal towns, as he and the whole House will be aware, the best places to visit as a tourist are some of the wonderful coastal towns of North Devon. The tourism industry in my constituency has lobbied hard for exactly the position that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. It is something for which I have a great deal of sympathy, but I wonder whether, as well as Her Majesty’s Treasury entering into those sorts of thoughts, we could look across the Government at other ways that the tourism industry can be supported. The point that is often made to me is that, for a relatively modest spend on promotion of the UK and its regions as a tourist destination, we can have greater benefits for the local economies.
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I recognise the sterling work that he does in promoting tourism in his own constituency. He is a constituency neighbour of mine and I am well aware of the good work that he does. He is right: we must do a lot of important things in terms of specifically supporting tourism.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his response so far. It is always a pleasure to intervene on him. Will he acknowledge that one of the great disadvantages that we have in Northern Ireland is the border, to which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred? There is an inflow of tourists going into the Republic of Ireland who take advantage of the 9% VAT rate as against what we have in Northern Ireland. It is about making sure that those tourists and visitors go across the border. Does he see the disadvantage of having the two different VAT rates, and does he also see the advantage of having a reconciled VAT rate, which would mean that we in Northern Ireland could then take bigger advantage of the US visitors who go to the Republic of Ireland?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of VAT specifically in Northern Ireland. As he will be aware, we undertook a call for evidence, which we announced at the Budget before last. We have now reported on that and will continue to look at the issue of VAT, although we are currently constrained by virtue of our membership of the European Union, as I will argue later. Northern Ireland actually has some advantages over the Republic of Ireland when it comes to VAT. For example, we have the highest VAT threshold for businesses that have to charge VAT in the European Union and the OECD, including the Irish Republic.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the specific support we provide for tourism. We provide some £60 million per year for our GREAT Britain campaign, £20 million per year of which goes to VisitBritain. Our tourism action plan looks at regulation, transport, skills and all the other things that underpin tourist activity as well as money and taxation. Some £40 million goes to the Discover England fund for promoting tourism outside London.
At the heart of the right hon. Gentleman’s ask is clearly a reduction in VAT, particularly with regard to food and beverages, attractions and accommodation— the areas that he cited when he mentioned the VAT directive and the derogations in items (7), (12) and (12a). The Government recognise the strength of feeling on this matter. We have met campaigners over many years, and I have engaged extensively with Members right across the House. We will keep VAT and VAT on tourism under review, but unfortunately there are some issues from which we cannot hide away. One of those issues is the fact that, if we are to make a change, under the current arrangements with the European Union that change would have to be UK-wide. It would therefore come with quite a hefty price tag.
The Treasury estimates that, in the first year at least—although one recognises there are dynamic effects of reducing taxes, increasing activity and therefore perhaps getting more tax revenue further down the line—we would be looking at a cost of about £10 billion for reducing VAT from 20% down to 5% in the categories that I mentioned. That would be about £7 billion on food and beverages, £2 billion on accommodation and £1 billion on attractions. Some of that loss, or some of the relief that we would be providing, would be dead weight in the sense that it would not necessarily solely apply to supporting tourism.
Mr Carmichael
There is one important factor of which we should not lose sight, which is that our tourism sector is enormously competitive. Therefore, there would be every incentive for the operators in the industry to pass on the money that would be available to them by having a reduced rate of VAT. As a consequence, we would see that recycling effect accelerated in a way that we probably would not see in any other industry.
Mel Stride
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. As somebody who philosophically believes in lower taxes, I think that is a very strong argument. However, unfortunately there is the cost argument. To use the same kind of principles to the right hon. Gentleman’s argument on recycling, clearly if we were bringing in less by way of taxation as a consequence of the reduction, there would be less to spend on other things that arguably might help tourism, including improved infrastructure and maybe even tax reliefs in other areas, such as the progress that we have made in reducing small retailers’ business rates.
We have one of the highest VAT thresholds of any country in both the European Union and the OECD, which is an advantage to us and our tourist sector.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
We see the reduction in VAT as one of the cards in the deck that can help to grow our economy, and it is vitally important, from a tourism perspective, that we look at that. However, one of the other tools in the box is air passenger duty. We are competing against Dublin because the Republic of Ireland has zero APD. That is not just affecting Northern Ireland—it affects airports throughout the UK because, to save on APD, people are travelling from the UK to Dublin to go on to America. That has an impact not just on Northern Ireland but on airports in the UK.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. In fact, I have been to Northern Ireland and met representatives of Belfast airport and others, and I have met them here in the UK—in London—as well. As he will know, we had a call for evidence on APD, which was launched at the Budget before last, and we have reported back on that. We have now set up a technical working group to see what kinds of opportunities there may be to devolve APD to Northern Ireland, although at the moment there is the critical issue of the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive. In the longer term, we would certainly be committed to seeing the issue devolved, and then of course it would be for the Northern Ireland Executive, once reconstituted and up and running, to take the appropriate decisions around that.
Returning to VAT, we do of course have reduced rates in the United Kingdom in areas like museums and transport such as buses and trains, which is not universally the case across our competitor nations. It is also possible, through the retail export scheme, for certain visitors to the UK to reclaim VAT from certain retailers. That is another important VAT relief.
In essence, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right that I was not going to spring up to the Dispatch Box and announce a huge tax cut across the tourism sector, much as I would love to have done. Perhaps in this crazy world in which we are living, I should have done, but there we are—I did not. I restrained myself and was responsible, for once. However, I absolutely reassure him that everything that he has said on this matter this evening, and indeed has said in the past and will say in future, has been and will be very carefully noted. We will continue to look at all taxes, and certainly VAT. I look forward to further engagement with him in the coming weeks and months, and thank him very much indeed for bringing this important debate to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Jersey) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 September, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 238 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Isle of Man) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 September, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 238 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Guernsey) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 September, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 238 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 11 October, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 232 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Short Selling (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Short Selling (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson? It is a pleasure to be here again to introduce a statutory instrument. I thoroughly enjoyed the preparation for this debate.
In the context of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the Treasury has been preparing extensively for a range of potential outcomes, including a no-deal scenario. This statutory instrument forms part of the work that is necessary to ensure that there continues to be a functional regulatory and legislative regime for financial services if the UK leaves the EU with no deal and no implementation period. As colleagues are aware, we have had a number of debates in the House as part of that process. The statutory instrument is another part of that programme of legislation.
Short selling is the practice of someone selling a security that they borrowed, with the aim of buying it back at a lower price than they sold it for. Following the financial crisis, a number of countries, including the UK, acted to suspend or ban short selling due to the risks it posed to the stability of the global financial system. In response, the EU introduced the short selling regulation—the SSR—which introduced a harmonised regulatory framework for short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps. That regulation relates to financial instruments that are admitted to trading or traded on a European economic area trading venue.
Given that the UK would be outside the EEA and the EU’s legal, supervisory and regulatory framework in a no-deal scenario, the existing legislation needs to be updated to reflect that and amended to ensure that its provisions work properly in such a scenario. The statutory instrument will therefore make a number of amendments to the SSR and related legislation, including certain parts of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, to ensure that they continue to operate effectively in the UK once the UK has left the EU.
First, the statutory instrument amends the scope of the regulation so that it relates only to instruments admitted to trading on UK venues and UK sovereign debt. Financial instruments admitted to trading only on EU venues will no longer be in the scope of UK regulation. Additionally, the statutory instrument amends the UK’s powers to address threats to financial stability or market confidence in the context of the SSR. Under the current regulation, the UK can take action on instruments for which it is the most liquid market in Europe or that were first admitted to trading in the UK. If the UK wishes to take action on an instrument that has its most liquid market elsewhere in the European Union or was first admitted to trading on an EU venue, it is required to seek consent from the relevant EU regulator. The statutory instrument deletes that provision so that those instruments will be treated in line with other third-country instruments. That means the UK will be able to take action against any instrument traded on a UK venue and, before using those powers, will consider threats solely to UK market confidence and financial stability.
Secondly, the statutory instrument transfers to the appropriate UK bodies functions that are currently carried out by EU authorities. For example, there will be a transfer of powers, such as the power to specify when a sovereign credit default swap transaction is regarded as hedging against a default risk, from the European Commission to the Treasury. Powers will also be transferred to the Financial Conduct Authority from EU supervisory bodies. Those include powers that will enable the FCA to make technical standards and take action on all instruments admitted to trading on a UK venue. The FCA is the appropriate regulator to which to transfer those functions because it has the necessary technical expertise to make technical standards, due to its existing supervisory responsibilities in relation to short selling.
Thirdly, the statutory instrument deletes provisions that facilitate co-operation and co-ordination across the European Union. Currently, regulators in member states must notify their counterparts in other member states before taking action to restrict short selling, with other regulators subsequently determining whether to apply similar restrictions. This instrument removes those provisions, along with the powers of the European Securities and Markets Authority to intervene in exceptional circumstances.
The statutory instrument makes technical amendments to existing UK legislation, particularly part 8A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, to ensure that the UK can continue to respond to overseas regulators’ requests for information. It is the intention of the UK to preserve as far as possible a mutually beneficial working relationship with the EU, in the same way as we currently co-operate with non-EU regulators under existing provisions in the 2000 Act.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
What assessment has the Treasury made of the likely increase in the volume of activity at the Financial Conduct Authority and whether the resources are sufficient to deal with that?
John Glen
I can confirm that the Treasury worked very closely with the FCA before publication of this SI on 9 August. Over the two months before the regulations were laid on 9 October, we took feedback from industry and the regulator, and we are confident that they are in a very strong position to deal with the requirements that they would be given in the context of a no-deal outcome subsequent to the SI.
Let me make some progress—I am nearly there. The instrument maintains a number of existing exemptions. The current regulation provides exemptions from certain reporting requirements, restrictions on uncovered short selling for shares that are traded primarily in a third country, and the buy-in regime. Those will be maintained, and the FCA will now take on responsibility for publishing a list of relevant third country shares that are subject to the exemption—a responsibility that currently rests with the European Securities and Markets Authority. To ensure continuity at the point of exit, the FCA will recognise the ESMA list for two years following exit day, so that there will be no change to the exemptions.
Additionally, the SI maintains the exemption for market makers and authorised primary dealers under SSR. This exemption enables firms to carry out certain primary market operations and market-making activities without the requirement to disclose their net short position. Moreover, provided that they meet certain thresholds, those operators are not required to comply with relevant restrictions on uncovered short selling. Market makers will be required to join a UK trading venue and notify the FCA at least 30 days before exit should they wish to benefit from the exemption. However, the operators that have already done that will not experience a change.
The instrument deletes the conditions in the current regulation that must be met to be able to correlate sovereign issuer positions to sovereign debt. To determine sovereign debt correlation under SSR that can be used to offset the positions of sovereign issuers, those conditions are currently used. The deletion reflects the fact that the UK will be the sole sovereign issuer in question post-exit. The instrument will also provide the Treasury with the power after exit to set the relevant thresholds.
The instrument makes amendments that will enable UK credit default swaps to be used by market participants to hedge correlated assets and liabilities anywhere in the world, rather than solely in the EU. That will ensure that UK firms can continue to use UK sovereign credit default swaps to hedge correlated liabilities or assets issued by issuers in the EEA and, in future, across the rest of the world, too.
In summary, the Government believe that this SI is necessary to ensure that the regulatory regime relating to short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps works effectively if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I sincerely hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations; I commend them to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. As the Minister said, this is one of a large number of SIs relating to preparations for a potential no-deal Brexit. We are enjoying doing about 70 between now and February. I think that I speak for everyone this morning when I say what a pleasure it is to have one of them immediately after two days on the Finance (No. 3) Bill. Our enthusiasm for being able to have a session this morning is evident.
As the Minister knows, the Opposition have voiced concerns about the adequacy of this process, but I will state them again for the record. The record number of Treasury statutory instruments, and the speed at which they are set to unfold, is deeply concerning when it comes to ensuring the Government are held fully accountable. As the Opposition, we commit to make every effort to do so, but this is a constitutionally unprecedented and enormously resource-intensive task that leaves room for error.
Today’s legislation deals with the issue of short selling. As the Minister said, regulation of short selling is something that EU member states have worked collectively to achieve following the financial crisis, in line with global efforts to ensure that shorting does not exacerbate worsening market conditions for particular securities in times of volatility. The 10-year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the darkest moments of the financial crisis are a stark reminder that we cannot afford to be complacent on that front. It therefore makes sense that those regulations should be thoroughly enshrined in UK law, and protected in the event that we crash out without a deal.
However, I have some further questions to ask the Minister. First, which stakeholders, if any, were consulted regarding the instrument? Was there any dialogue with trading venues about implementation of these regulations from a solely UK perspective and, if so, how was their feedback taken into account? In addition, the explanatory memorandum says that
“the power to set notification thresholds for short selling positions”
will be transferred
“from the EU Commission to the Treasury.”
The Minister made that point explicitly, so can he elaborate on the process for setting those thresholds in future? Will they continue to be fixed at the levels used by the EU Commission, or will the FCA or the Treasury have the power to adapt them in future? That seems to be the most substantive issue before us, and I would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarity on those points.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is not just the enthusiasm from the Finance Bill but from the Scotland win last night, that has brought me here this morning. I am delighted to be here, and to report that news to the Committee, if Members have not already heard.
I have many of the same concerns about this instrument as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I continue to be concerned that we are putting an additional burden on the FCA and the Treasury, and I am yet to be convinced that we have not just the expertise, but the numbers of staff and the capacity, to take this on in addition to all the other SIs that have already been laid before the House, or will be in the weeks and months ahead. I would like some more information from the Minister about the detail of that.
Secondly, with all these powers going to the FCA and the Treasury, what will be the role of this House in scrutinising the measures as we go forward? Obviously, these are very important regulations, given the issues that arose in the 2008 crash, which might not have happened if we had had greater scrutiny at the time. After 10 years of progress on developing regulations, we do not want to slip back again once we fall out of the European Union mechanism for co-operation. I want safeguards to be put in place to make sure, should we move away from the current co-operation mechanism, that we do not end up in the same circumstances as we were in during the financial crash.
I was concerned to hear the Minister discuss the deleting of co-operation provisions. Clearly, that is a result of coming out of the EU, but I want to know a bit more about what might replace those provisions in future, or what mechanisms will be set up for European co-operation in this area. It is in all of our interests to have those mechanisms—to have some means of working together—and just saying, “We will find a way of doing that in future” does not really cut it when we are talking about something that, if it is not done absolutely correctly, could bring down the entire economy.
Seema Malhotra
Further to my intervention on the Minister, and regarding the point that the hon. Lady has eloquently made, there appears to be an assumption that the volume of activity that this instrument may lead to will just be absorbed by the existing resources. Combined with the fact that it is not going to be business as usual post-Brexit, or indeed in the run-up to Brexit, does the hon. Lady agree that the issue of resources needs to be looked at more seriously as a result of this and other measures?
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concerns. As I said, we already have many SIs, and lots more are coming down the line. I am sure that many more exciting Committee sittings will take place to examine the details of those SIs. I would like a bit more clarity about the numbers of people who will be required to implement this regime, monitor it, and make sure that it works in future.
I would also like to know a bit more about the implications of this SI. The explanatory memorandum states:
“Wherever practicable, the proposed approach is that the same laws and rules that are currently in place in the UK would continue to apply at the point of exit”,
and it goes on to talk about continuity, certainty and all of those things. It would be useful to know how tightly we need to remain aligned to existing measures, now that we no longer follow those rules or have any influence in making them. I would question the whole point of leaving the EU in the first place if we have to stay that closely aligned—what is the point in leaving and having an inferior deal? Of course that is not what Scotland voted for, and that remains the case. Those are my questions. Other points were raised by other hon. Members, so I am happy to sit down and let the Minister reply.
John Glen
I will seek to address the specific points raised, but in response to the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Glasgow Central it is worth repeating that the Treasury is taking this exercise very seriously, and a lot of work and rigour is going into the SIs and the consultation process that goes with them. It is obviously exacting to get on top of all the details about what needs to happen, but each SI is taken seriously and there is a process of engagement, in this case with trading venues such as the London Stock Exchange, the FCA, the Bank of England and those who participate in the market. In response to the first question from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, a considerable amount of work was done over that two-month period before the SI was published. An impact assessment has also been made, which will be published later today.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Usually, impact assessments are provided for these Committees. My office contacted the Treasury for an impact assessment, so can the Minister explain why it is being provided after the Committee? We do not have the opportunity properly to scrutinise SI Committee presentations of legislation, which is not acceptable.
John Glen
I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, and this reflects the unusual nature of the process. The Treasury has made five impact assessments on these SIs, and I have been in dialogue with the Regulatory Policy Committee about the unusual nature of this process and the contingency arrangements for no deal. Those impact assessments will be published in due course.
Rushanara Ali
This is a broader issue that has been raised in previous debates, because we do not have the opportunity properly to scrutinise these measures with the relevant facts and information. Will the Minister give an undertaking that Committees will be provided with information in advance, to the best of the Treasury’s abilities, rather than saying, “Sorry, we don’t have anything to provide to you”? That is not acceptable because it means that these Committees are a rubber-stamping exercise without the relevant information and support to enable Members properly to conduct their roles and scrutinise the Government.
John Glen
The issues with impact assessments are extremely complicated, and we have taken the time needed to ensure that they are as robust as possible in a very constrained timeframe. This is not an optimal process, and I and my fellow Ministers and officials are doing everything we can to bring the impact assessment process to the scrutiny of the House as quickly as possible. The hon. Lady is correct—ideally we should have published these impact assessments sooner. We have proactively sought to engage Members on the issues with the SIs, anticipating concerns that may be raised, and we are doing everything we can. [Interruption.] I cannot give more comfort, I am afraid, but I am happy to give way if the hon. Lady thinks we can edify the Committee further.
Rushanara Ali
I am grateful to the Minister and apologise for taking up his time, but can he provide an undertaking that this will not happen in future? It is unacceptable that the impact assessment is provided after Committee sittings. Will the Minister give an undertaking that that will not happen, and that Committees will be held after the impact assessment has been made available?
John Glen
I undertake to continue to do everything I can to bring these impact assessments to the House as quickly as possible in the imperfect conditions that we have. Where possible, we will do that, but I also have to balance that with ensuring that the statutory instrument that I bring before the House is fit for purpose, because the objective is to provide a contingent regime in a no-deal scenario that is fit for the market and avoids the instability that we wish to avoid.
Turning to the second point by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde on thresholds, he asked me to elaborate on the transfer of powers from the European Commission to the Treasury. This SI onshoring process does not permit us to specify additional changes in policy. The Treasury is well equipped to make those judgments and will do so in a no-deal situation, as part of a larger piece of financial services regulation.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central quite legitimately raised concerns, as she has done on a number of occasions, about the FCA’s capacity to carry on the functions of EU bodies to implement this instrument and the resources available. I can reassure her once again that those resources are available. The FCA does have the resources to account for the additional work. Processes such as notifying a regulator of net short positions under the SSR will remain the same, and market makers in the UK will continue to report to the FCA in the same manner as they currently do under the European Security and Markets Authority, which delegates its implementation powers to the national competent authorities. In this country that is the FCA, so the FCA is equipped and ready to do that.
General concern was expressed about whether this means that we will go down a deregulatory route in a no-deal situation. It is my instinct, and, I think, that of the regulator, that we would wish to remain closely aligned. A no-deal situation, as undesirable as it is, does not mean we are in a situation of hostility. From my conversations with my counterparts in European countries, I know that they wish us to have a strong relationship even in a no-deal situation. I believe the lines of communication are open and the UK has been a force for good in securing high-quality regulations.
In conclusion, I believe that this SI is necessary to ensure that the regulatory regime relating to short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps will work effectively if the UK leaves the EU with neither a deal nor an implementation period. I hope the Committee has found this morning’s sitting informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to introduce the regulations, which were laid before the House on 22 October. The regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They form part of a wider programme of work to adjust our existing legislative framework in readiness for leaving the European Union next year. If approved, the regulations will make minor and technical amendments to the Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts Regulations 2010, to correct deficiencies that would arise from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The Government maintain that the best outcome for the UK is, of course, to leave the EU with a good deal. If a deal—and therefore a withdrawal agreement—is struck, the implementation date of the draft instrument could be changed by any subsequent Bill that the Government introduce to implement the withdrawal agreement in UK law. It is, however, the duty of a responsible Government to prepare for all scenarios, which is what we are doing by bringing the draft instrument, and other secondary legislation, before the House.
The Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts Regulations 2010 transpose into UK law a 2008 EU directive on timeshare and long-term holiday products, and improve consumer protections for those investing in timeshares across European economic area states, aiming to increase consumer confidence in the industry. That was done through a number of new rights and obligations on traders. Those regulations included greater requirements on timeshare sellers to provide key information to consumers before the contract, including the consumer’s right to withdraw and the requirement that the information and the contract be provided in the language of the member state in which the consumer was resident or of which they were a national. The regime also extended consumer protections to a much broader range of holiday-related services, including resale contracts, exchange contracts and long-term holiday contracts, as well as timeshare contracts. Those services are all characterised by long-term commitment or significant financial risks for consumers.
If approved, the draft regulations before the Committee will make minor, technical amendments to the 2010 regulations, to correct deficiencies that would arise from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The draft regulations amend references to the EEA states and to the existing language requirements, and include amendments that ensure that contracts governed by UK law are still protected when the UK is no longer a member state, and that widen the scope of the regulations, so that certain contracts governed by the law of EEA states will now be subject to the same regime as contracts currently governed by the law of third countries. In addition, language requirements are amended so that key information must be provided in English rather than in the language of an EEA state.
In practice, most of the protections of the 2010 regulations will continue, except that contracts applying the law of an EEA state will now be subject to the same requirements as contracts applying the law of a third country. The draft instrument will save the current regulations, so they will remain the same for UK consumers buying timeshares and other long-term holiday products in the UK and from UK companies, where the contracts are governed by the law of the United Kingdom. Where UK consumers buy certain timeshares and other long-term holiday products governed by the law of an EEA state, those contracts will now be treated in the same way as contracts applying the law of a third country, as EEA states will now be third countries.
The new regime generally will not cover contracts where UK consumers purchased timeshares and other long-term holiday products from EEA traders when they are in an EEA state. Generally, those contracts will be subject to the laws of that member state, as a UK consumer will no longer be a citizen of an EEA state. An EEA state’s law might not apply to UK consumers in the same way as it did previously. Although UK and EU law is highly aligned, we encourage consumers to be aware where possible of the protections offered by the specific seller and by the member state where the seller is located. That would help to clarify whether the level of protection is different from that of the UK.
The draft regulations ensure that the contract and mandatory pre-contractual information are provided in English, but allow them also to be provided in another language, irrespective of whether it is an official language of the EEA state. An assessment of the impact of the statutory instrument has concluded that it does not represent a policy change. It is expected to result in little or no wider impacts or transfers and to have a minimal effect on UK businesses and consumers or on the wider society, environment and the rest of the economy—as I previously set out, generally the terms of the draft regulations will remain the same for timeshare and other long-term holiday products sold in the UK.
This Government believe that the draft regulations are a sensible and necessary use of the powers of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will ensure that our consumer law continues to function effectively on exit day. I commend them to the Committee.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Pritchard. According to the Competition and Markets Authority, there were between 500,000 and 600,000 UK timeshare owners in 2015. Almost half were in Spain, 20% in the UK, and 25% outside Europe. The 2010 regulations are important in ensuring that consumers have crucial information when they enter into what is sometimes a lifelong arrangement.
As I said in Committee on Monday, the UK has been a beacon for consumer protection in the EU and globally. We should be proud that countries across the world look at our consumer protection laws. Since the Brexit vote in 2016, however, consumers have been left in limbo, and that uncertainty has been heightened by the Government’s lack of engagement with consumer groups, particularly at a senior level, on the terms of our withdrawal.
As the Minister said, this SI is an attempt to pave the way for the continuation of current laws when we leave the EU. It also broadens the 2010 regulations by amending the definition of a holiday accommodation contract. I will not repeat the technical details that the Minister gave us so eloquently, but I want to say that, time after time, we have pressed the Government on the enforcement mechanism that will ensure effective cross-border trading and protections after we have left the EU. Unfortunately I have not received a satisfactory answer from the Minister or any of her predecessors.
As I mentioned in a similar Committee on Monday, it is staggering that there has been a 56% reduction in trading standard bodies between 2009-10 and 2016. Some local authorities have only one qualified officer, depleting their enforcement capabilities. On timeshares and other areas of this legislation, I am concerned that no deal would make it harder for consumers to enforce their rights in the EU, as we will no longer have access to the networks that can currently be used, such as the consumer protection co-operation network, alternative dispute resolutions for consumers and online dispute resolution systems. Where consumers need to take legal action against a company in a EU member state, current arrangements allow for their issuing claims in their home courts and for judgments to be enforced more easily across the EU, but those will no longer apply.
I am unhappy at the Government’s decision not to undertake impact assessments for this SI and many others, although I take on board the Minister’s comments about the impact on business. In conclusion—I shall be brief, because it is cold in here—we will approve this SI.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I am aware that our purpose is to try to deal with the administrative burden placed on Government by the process of Brexit, and that we are basically trying to rededicate ourselves to the 2010 regulations in this area. I am also aware that in these Committees we do not seek to amend the regulations before us and that no one is here to have a big debate about timeshare policy. Notwithstanding all of the above, I want to take this opportunity to put on record, as we reconfirm the regulations, concern about their adequacy and to ask the Minister to review them in the months ahead.
As has been said, there are around 600,000 people with timeshare contracts in the UK. A great many of them entered into those contracts in the ’80s and ’90s while on holiday in their middle age. They are now at retirement age and many of them are facing quite a number of problems dealing with these contracts. I have become involved, as many Members have, through casework when people have come to me with a problem and asked me to intervene. I am thoroughly convinced that the regulations need to be updated on a number of fronts.
I am the sponsor of an early-day motion in the House, which has 55 cross-party signatories so far, calling for reform of the regulations. I ask the Minister to consider five points. First, will she extend the cooling-off period from 14 to 28 days, because many people are still sold timeshares while on holiday? The holiday may well last 14 days, so they do not properly get the opportunity to consider or, crucially, to take independent advice on the contract until they get back to this country.
Secondly, will she include in the regulations a requirement for a break clause in contracts so that in a proper, efficient and timeous manner, people are able to give notice and get out of a contract? In my view, there should be a break clause after five years, or a period of time. If the timeshare company’s product is as good as it believes, it should not have a problem with that.
Thirdly, will the Minister deal with the fact that many of these contracts last in perpetuity? People are hounded for their contract obligations, even in death, as the obligations pass to their estate. We ought to have a situation, as with most contracts, whereby the commitment ends with the death of either of the contracting parties. Fourthly, will she try to regulate the fees that are charged to ensure that they go up in line with inflation, but not in a manner that would be considered usurious or exploitative and seeking to make profits for the timeshare companies, particularly as contracts are sold on from one company to another? Finally, perhaps we ought to look at having an ombudsman in this area so that complaints can be independently adjudicated.
I appreciate that these are not matters we can decide today but I ask the Minister to consider whether, even within the existing regulations, there is administrative action that could be taken on those fronts. If not, would she consider the possibility of amending the regulations at a future date? If she is able to do that, I would offer no resistance to the regulations being approved today, and I would not seek to divide the House when it comes to their approval at a later date.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. As I have said, we remain confident that we will reach an agreement with the EU, but it is important to prepare our legislative framework, in case we leave the EU with no deal, to protect our consumers and businesses. That is what this instrument is doing. I have demonstrated that the proposed regulations do not make any substantial changes to the existing regime for the protection of buyers of timeshares and other long-term holiday products in the UK, nor to the general standards that timeshare traders are required to meet when trading in the UK. I might add that the regulations do not extend the Secretary of State’s power in any way. They are essential to ensuring that the retained EU legislation that sets out these requirements continues to work effectively in the UK immediately after exit day. That is what the instruments are designed to do.
I will address the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East regarding the wider issues around timeshares. The current timeshare regime provides adequate protection for timeshare consumers at the point of sale, although many pre-2010 timeshare contracts pre-date the current regime. Those contracts, which are becoming less common, are not covered by the rights and protections introduced in the 2010 regulations. I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman made about any future changes to regulations and what he would like to see. What we are doing with the process in this particular SI is to save UK law with EU law. If this SI came into force, in the event of no deal, it would be purely down to the UK Parliament to decide if we wanted to change any future laws, in which case we would be looking at some of the matters he has spoken about.
With respect to the wider scope of the regulations and engagement with them, the CMA is the enforcer of the regulations in the UK. While the Department has not carried out an impact assessment, we have consulted two key bodies—the Resort Development Organisation and KwikChex—which are both members of the Chartered Institute of Trading Standards. We have had conversations with them. As hon. Members may know, the Consumer Protection Partnership, which met in the summer, fed into the draft regulations. We also had a consumer roundtable.
In response to some of the points that have been made, the Government always have high standards of consumer protection in mind. That is an area that I am responsible for and in which I take a personal interest, so I am always willing to look at new evidence, advice and opinions on changes that we could make to give consumers the protections that they need, but that needs to be done in the proper way.
I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough is concerned about cross-border co-operation and redress. The Government will present future draft instruments to deal with that. I can assure her that, while that is not dealt with in this particular statutory instrument, it is something that we are working on in the Department. Which? has been working with officials to feed into no-deal work being done at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and is doing its own piece of work with regard to the Government’s preparedness for a no-deal scenario. Which? is working with us and we are listening very carefully to anything that it has to say.
If the draft secondary legislation is not agreed today, it will cause part of the legislation to be inoperable, which is not in the interests of UK consumers. We must ensure, in the event that there is no agreement with the EU, that the right regulations and legislative framework are in place to provide buyers of timeshares and related products with adequate protection. I thank hon. Members for their time and for indicating their support for the SI.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Wednesday 21 November 2018
Petition
Petition of Giovanni Di Stefano
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
Wednesday 21st November 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 View all Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 4 July 2018 - (5 Jul 2018)
The Chair
As the Committee cannot consider the clauses of the Bill until the House has agreed to a money resolution, I call Afzal Khan to move that the Committee do now adjourn.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Committee do now adjourn.
This week has been described as one of the most precarious yet for the Prime Minister. It feels as if the same thing is said almost every week, with the level of threat inching up each time. I can see that sorting out parliamentary boundaries is not the Government’s top priority now.
The Chair
Order. Mr Khan, can you keep the comments to your motion and not make them party political, or about the leadership. Thank you.
Afzal Khan
The Government have precious little political capital at the moment, and it is all being used for Brexit, leaving none to spare for the boundaries. At the moment we have no idea when the next general election will be. For my part, I think it will be before 2022, and it would be far from satisfactory to have that election on the basis of current boundaries. The Government’s current strategy of delay, delay, delay on boundaries makes that almost inevitable.
Luckily an easy solution is already before us. My Bill offers a way out of the mess that the Government have created by trying to reduce the size of the Commons and disfranchise millions of young voters. We are offering to take some of the workload from busy Ministers and civil servants. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester has already drafted the orders that the Minister says we are waiting on. Will the Minister enlighten us about any developments?
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
I intend to make this point every time I attend the Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given an MP’s salary, coming here week in, week out, and wasting the valuable time of Members and officers in this way is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money? We are always being told how tight that is.
Afzal Khan
I thank my hon. Friend and could not agree more.
Will the Minister enlighten us about developments or an updated timetable for the process? Is she in a position to update us on the progress of the drafting of the orders?
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Dorries. Did not I see you in the Chair in the Chamber yesterday? I should like to think that that is a promotion for you, and that I may offer my congratulations as you go to the next level.
Christian Matheson
Indeed, I congratulate you once again.
I share the indignance of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln at what is becoming a farce. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton is right that part of the delay is due to the Government being unclear about whether they can get their strategy through, as they cannot be sure of the support of their Back Benchers at the moment. However, strangely enough, the opportunity that my hon. Friend presents would bring the whole House together, I am sure, and overcome some of the divisions it faces. He has demonstrated his willingness to work with Members from across the House, because he amended his original proposals before they were laid before the House, by changing the tolerance around the national electoral average. I think that my hon. Friend originally suggested 5% either side—a total of 10%. He has listened to constructive criticism and changed that to 7.5%, the better to meet the Government’s wishes. That demonstrates that there could be a healing process to overcome the divisions in the House.
Christian Matheson
I can only speak for myself on that one and as I am addressing you in the Chair, Ms Dorries, I can confirm I am not on my phone. My hon. Friend makes her own point, in her own inimitable style.
The other development that there has been on the matter in the past weeks was the Leader of the House’s announcement of three more sitting Fridays for consideration of Back-Bench business. If we pass the Bill through Committee soon enough, that would give us extra time for the consideration of the remaining stages on the Floor of the House, where, as we have said previously, Conservative Members would have the chance either to further amend the Bill or to vote it down in its entirety.
That is notwithstanding the advice of the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean—he is not in his place today but is normally an assiduous attender of the Committee—that it is very possible that all stages of a constitutional Bill such as this should be considered on the Floor of the House. You might have the honour and responsibility of chairing such a Committee of the whole House, Ms Dorries, now that you hold a more elevated position on the Panel of Chairs. I look forward to serving under your chairmanship in the future.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is an immense pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Ms Dorries. We meet for what I believe is the 19th time, and what a glorious number that is. It is not quite 48, but perhaps we will get there; we might have 48 sittings of this Committee.
Interestingly, this week we saw various members of the extreme Brexiteer wing of the Conservative party bemoaning the fact that we would not have seats in the European Parliament any more. We are, of course, losing those 73 Members of the European Parliament, which in some respects is right if we leave the European Union. However, those powers will come back from Brussels to this House, and it is the job of Members to scrutinise them. I gently suggest to the Government, through the Chair, that if we reduce our number of MEPs—some people are struggling to get their head around that concept—and those powers come back to the House, we should not reduce the number of legislators in this place.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Self-identification of Gender
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered proposals to allow self-identification of gender.
I thank you in advance for your chairmanship and guidance, Mr Hosie. Following our conversation earlier this morning, I am fully aware that this is a sensitive issue. I have concerns about self-identification of gender, but they are not in any way directed at anyone who is unfortunate enough to suffer from some form of gender dysphoria. I have met many trans women who share my concerns about this and want nothing to do with the kind of activism that seems to be going on and shutting down debate. The criticisms I have are of Government, Ministers and politically motivated organisations, many of which have access to public funds.
The law at the moment is that anyone who wishes to change their legal gender has to apply to the Gender Recognition Panel. They have to show a number of things, including that they have lived as their preferred gender for two years and have been diagnosed with some form of gender dysphoria. They also have to commit to living as their new gender for the rest of their life. One thing that they do not have to do is undergo any form of medical treatment or surgery. They do not even have to be taking any hormone pills. The vast majority of people who change gender maintain the body in which they are born. As far as I can find from the statistics, only one in five people who have changed gender have had any form of surgery. This is the cause of concern for many people.
Self-definition of gender is already happening. Organisations seem to be ahead of the law, which the Government may or may not be about to change. There is a particular concern about what is going on in schools with children. Guidance is being given to schools by publicly funded organisations such as Mermaids and others encouraging children to question their gender and redefine it if they wish. They can do so without their parents even being told about it. That can quickly set off a chain of events that can begin with children as young as 12 being given puberty blockers, about which there are many medical concerns. At least one doctor in my constituency has been giving these drugs out to children as young as 12. That can then progress on to hormone blockers, which have powerful and irreversible side effects. Once people start on that road, there is a danger that they may end up having more drastic and irreversible surgery, because once one is on that pathway, it becomes difficult to get off it.
Teachers who have tried to question what is going on or who have fallen foul of the activist groups are liable to find themselves being disciplined. A teacher called Joshua Sutcliffe was disciplined by a school in Oxford for committing the offence—a new one on me—of misgendering a group of pupils. He had apparently said, “Well done, girls”, after a maths exam, although one of the girls identified as a boy. For that, the teacher was disciplined.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
That incident happened in my community. I would like to point out that how the hon. Gentleman is portraying the incident is far simpler than the bigger issues surrounding it. It was not just a single incident; there were a number of incidents with that teacher, not only in that specific case but in other parts of the school. I remind him that these things are sometimes over-simplified. Does he agree that over-simplification of such a sensitive and complex issue sometimes is not helpful?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Lady is right, but if I over-simplify, it is partly so that she can have a chance to speak. We have only 90 minutes, and this is the first time we have debated the issue properly in the House of Commons. I look forward to hearing her longer explanation.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate to Parliament. It is such an important issue, and this is a great opportunity for us to have a respectful debate and discussion, but does he agree that as parliamentarians we have a duty not to over-simplify and to ensure that we properly educate ourselves to have an informed debate and discussion?
David T. C. Davies
Absolutely. That is why I have spent quite a lot of time talking to women who have concerns about the issue. Very few Members of Parliament have been willing to educate themselves and come along and meet people who have those concerns. It is notable that when we have had meetings in the House of Commons, very few people have turned up to listen to the concerns of activist feminist groups who feel that the potential change to the law will have a huge impact on their lives. I look forward to the hon. Lady’s support at future meetings we may have—we look forward to seeing her.
The Government are now considering legislation that would do away with the checks that are currently made and allow people to redefine themselves as any gender they wish. As far as I can see, that would mean that once the consultation has ended, if the Government do what the equal opportunities committee is recommending, people will be able to change their gender at any time. There would be no need to live outwardly as that gender, let alone to take hormones or have surgery. A 15-stone bearded man could simply define themselves as female and there would be nothing anyone could do to object. One might think that that does not matter—in fact, it does not, if that is what people want to do. I am a libertarian. I am a believer in freedom of choice. As far as I am concerned, it is absolutely fine, until it becomes an issue for other people and other people’s rights.
People who might outwardly appear to be male and possess a male body would, if they legally redefined their gender, suddenly gain access to women’s toilets, hospital wards, changing rooms, refuges and prisons. They would have the right to undertake roles that people would normally expect to be done by someone of the same sex as those the service is being offered to, such as nurses or carers conducting intimate procedures, prison or police officers carrying out searches or staff working in refuges for victims of domestic violence.
We saw an obvious example a few weeks ago of what can happen, and will happen more regularly, when a convicted male sex offender who had redefined himself as female was able to insist on his right to be put into a women’s prison. Within a matter of days, he had carried out four sexual assaults on women. Another example was given to me by someone who was the victim of long-term sexual abuse as a young person.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has cited a case and claimed that it proves that the Government should not change the law on gender recognition, yet that case, of which I do not know the detail, has happened under the current arrangements. Does that not actually point to a failure of risk assessment procedures, rather than a problem with the law?
David T. C. Davies
No, because as I said at the start, organisations such as prisons and schools are ahead of the law. They are already allowing self-identification of gender. There was certainly a failure of risk assessment with the case I mentioned. Shortly after it happened and the court case concluded, I asked the head of probation and prisons in Wales whether there had been any change to the guidance given to prison authorities about housing transgender prisoners, and I was told that there had not. I subsequently sought an urgent question about that, because, as I hope the hon. Lady would agree, it is appalling that vulnerable female prisoners, many of whom have been victims of male violence, are being put at risk in this fashion. It was not deemed important enough to be discussed in Parliament.
Layla Moran
The hon. Gentleman is gracious to give way to me for a second time. May I clarify whether his assertion is that prisons and schools are doing something illegal under the current Gender Recognition Act 2004?
David T. C. Davies
No, I have not asserted that at all. I have said that prisons and schools are allowing self-identification of gender at the moment. The law may well change shortly following the consultation, to give that a legal footing and to allow people to legally register their gender as being different from the one they are born with. The practicality is that that is already happening. I have made that point several times.
David T. C. Davies
Yes, but I am conscious that others may want to speak, and I do not want to use up all their time.
Hannah Bardell
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it seems strange to cite an example of a failure in the current system as a reason not to make improvements to the system? He mentioned women’s refuges. Linda Rodgers of Edinburgh Women’s Aid noted:
“The reality is that any service has the potential to be abused, and we would deal with that, whatever direction it came from on a case by case basis…I don’t think this should be used as a reason to restrict the rights of a particular group.”
Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that we should not make policy on the basis of the incidents he mentions or of some individuals who may abuse the system. It should be about equality and fairness for everybody.
David T. C. Davies
Absolutely, but the point I am making is reasonable: if people are legally able to redefine their gender, the prison authorities, for example, will not be able to prevent a male who has redefined their gender from going to a female prison. That is already happening and is bound to become a lot easier.
David T. C. Davies
Perhaps one last time. I will be guided by you, Mr Hosie.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman appears to argue that women prisoners need protection only from trans women. In fact, we need to protect all prisoners from a range of potential hazards, and such things should be applied on the basis of individual cases, not on the basis of someone’s gender identification. How can he argue that a risk assessment should not apply equally? It could apply to other women, not only to trans women.
David T. C. Davies
It could, but the reality is that the vast majority of sexual assaults are carried out by males against females. I am told that the figure is higher than 90%, and I believe that. On extraordinarily rare occasions, women assault males, but let us be honest, it is very unusual. If we allow people who have been convicted of sexual offences as males to redefine their gender and insist on their right to go into female prisons, we will clearly put women at risk. I do not see how anyone can fault the logic of that. We have already seen what can happen when that goes on.
The other example I want to give is of somebody who has been involved in speaking out on this issue. She has been a victim of long-term sexual abuse and was helped by a women’s organisation in the south of England. I will not go into the detail of what went on, but it was horrendous. She told me that there is absolutely no way she would have been able to access that service from anyone who was male, or have anything to do with that organisation if anyone male was there. She has subsequently been told that anyone who defines themselves as female will be able to use the service and be part of the group that helps women who have been victims of sexual abuse. Because of that, she would not have accessed that service today. There are many other women in the same situation.
My point is that even before any legislation has been passed, we are already seeing organisations such as schools, hospitals and prisons allowing people to define themselves as a different gender from the one that they were born with, and to which in the majority of cases their body corresponds. That has an impact on others, and particularly on the right of women to privacy and to sex-segregated spaces.
One issue that particularly concerns me is the lack of debate that has gone on. I am grateful for the fact that we are able to have this debate here today. Although groups in receipt of public funds, such as Mermaids, seem to have an open door to Government and Select Committees, anyone who expresses concern about this matter is ignored. PinkNews seems to have abandoned any pretence at objective reporting and vilifies women’s and lesbian groups that want to save sex-segregated spaces. Women’s rights activists who have met to discuss the impact of the changes have faced verbal and physical harassment. Those who have resisted, such as Venice Allan, have been subject to ludicrous, vexatious legal action and dragged into court to defend themselves for speaking freely about their concerns.
I arranged a meeting in Parliament for a women’s group after a venue in London, at Millwall football club, had been cancelled. Numerous complaints were made to the House of Commons authorities before the meeting, and I was called into a meeting with the Serjeant at Arms. As the Minister knows, I have been an MP for 13 years and, like most MPs, I have organised numerous meetings for numerous groups. I have never before had to go and spend an hour with the Serjeant at Arms explaining myself. I have no problem with the conversation that we had, but it is very unusual for that to happen.
I tried to organise another meeting afterwards. Again, I was contacted by the Serjeant at Arms’ office. After the meeting took place, numerous complaints were made, mostly vexatious, but they resulted in a three-month investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Again, I have no problem with that and with the conclusion that she reached, but such investigations are very unusual. I was even told by another Member of Parliament that I could face police action because of what had taken place, because of the potential that a public order offence had been committed. This matter is one for debate, such as the one we are having now. We have a right to discuss these issues. If people know that meetings will result in investigations and legal action against them, even if it amounts to nothing, they will obviously be far less inclined to hold them.
The Government, whom I support by and large, are proposing fundamental changes that will have a huge impact on people. That is being done without proper consideration and in an atmosphere of menace. Many people are deeply concerned by what is going on. I urge Ministers and members of the relevant Select Committees to listen to the concerns and to meet some of the groups that are concerned about what is going on, rather than ignoring them, which I am afraid is what happens at the moment. Some organisations seem to have an open door into the offices of Ministers of Government, but others—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes her head, but perhaps she can tell me how many times Ministers have met Transgender Trend or Woman’s Place and how many times they have met Mermaids or other pro-trans activist groups.
People should not face dismissal from their jobs for suggesting that a woman cannot have a penis. It may be an issue about which we can have different opinions, but it is certainly a debatable point at the very least. Nor should they face dismissal for the so-called offence of “misgendering”.
Women who want safe same-sex spaces are not transphobic and are not committing hate crimes. They are simply reflecting a concern for their own safety, which, as a man, I have to say is based on a valid fear for far too many. I hope the Government will stop listening to some of the activist organisations and start listening to people, very often outside the M25, who have a different opinion. I say to the Minister, with all due respect, that I have supported the Government through thick and thin, as she knows, often in difficult circumstances, but I will not support the Government on this issue. Not only will I not support them if they go ahead with what I think they are planning, but I will do my utmost, in so far as I can, to stop any changes in legislation going ahead that will undermine the safety of women and change our society in ways that are very concerning.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) on securing this debate. Although we are perhaps on opposite sides on some of the issues, I agree absolutely that not enough debate has been had in this House on this matter.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate today, especially because it is Trans Awareness Week. Yesterday was the Transgender Day of Remembrance, a day when we are meant to remember the huge inequalities and the number of transgender people who have died over the years because of the oppression that they faced. I hope the Minister will join me today in solidarity with the community that over the past few months has had inordinate amounts of abuse hurled at it from all quarters. However, today is an opportunity to shed some light rather than heat on this debate, particularly on the issues that underpin some of that heat.
I want to place on the record my thanks to my Liberal Democrat colleague and friend, Helen Belcher, whom I have worked with closely on this matter. I also want to place it on the record that I am wholeheartedly behind the Government’s proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I believe that they are proportionate and well thought through. It is time that Britain caught up with many other countries around the world—a point I will come to later.
That said, I absolutely appreciate the sincerely held concerns of not just the hon. Gentleman but many other people, including constituents who have contacted me to say that they are worried about aspects of the proposals. My constituent Juliette said:
“I am frightened by the fact that women’s voices are being dismissed and silenced”.
My constituent Nicola wrote:
“It’s taken me several days to build up the courage to email you for fear of being labelled transphobic or hateful and believe me, I am not—I fully support the rights of the trans community to live their life without discrimination”.
It is a damning indictment on not just us, although we politicians need to take responsibility for shying away from what is a controversial and sensitive issue, but on the media, which I do not believe have treated the issue with fairness on either side. In today’s debate and moving forward, we need to try to bring the two sides together, because I do not think there is a conflict between being a feminist and believing in trans rights.
Since my election in 2017, I have ensured that Ministers are aware of my constituents’ views on both sides of the debate. I particularly thank the Minister’s colleague in the other place, Baroness Williams of Trafford, for taking the time to meet me to discuss the issues. I have not attended the meetings organised by the hon. Member for Monmouth simply because I have been listening to my constituents and working on the issue in other ways. I take slight offence at the insinuation that because I have not attended his meetings I do not care deeply about the issue and have not been engaging in the debate.
I appreciate that Ministers are considering responses to the public consultation, but it would be encouraging to hear from the Minister about what steps the Government are taking to reassure people who are worried about the reform, and what active myth-busting is occurring, or is planned, regarding the misconceptions. That will be the crux of my speech.
It is important to put self-identification and self-declaration in the context of the Equality Act 2010. If we understand what that legislation allows, we can then talk about how the law might be reformed or changed. The Act protects people from discrimination on the basis of sex and gender reassignment, and describes the exemptions that allow single-sex spaces. Under the Act, it is a legitimate aim to provide safe spaces for women, but it is not proportionate to exclude all trans women from those spaces simply because they are trans, which is an incredibly important point. Furthermore, the Act protects those who have undergone, are undergoing, or are proposing to undergo a process, or part of a process, of reassigning their gender.
It is probably worth mentioning the sorts of interventions and operations that some trans people choose not to have. First, that is their medical choice to make. Secondly, think for a moment of the extensive operations that would need to happen. Many trans people are put off simply because it is painful, and in some cases expensive. Sometimes they feel unable to have operations because only a certain number of licensed practitioners in the country are allowed to perform them. Some trans people prefer to go abroad to have them, but that is not recognised in this country. There are many complex reasons behind the 93% figure. The proposed reforms would go some way to removing some of those barriers.
David T. C. Davies
I hear what the hon. Lady is saying. May I bluntly ask her whether she would be happy sharing a changing room with somebody who was born male and had a male body?
Layla Moran
I believe that women are women, so if that person was a trans woman, I absolutely would. I just do not see the issue. As for whether they have a beard, which was one of the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments, I dare say that some women have beards. There are all sorts of reasons why our bodies react differently to hormones. There are many forms of the human body. I see someone in their soul and as a person. I do not really care whether they have a male body.
In essence, the Equality Act already works on the basis of self-declaration of gender, as it does for religion and sexuality. Coming back to the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier about society being ahead of the Act, that is actually not the case; society is implementing the Act as it stands.
The concern voiced by some people that reforming the Gender Recognition Act to allow self-declaration would allow men into women’s spaces needs more discussion. Since my election, 12 constituents have contacted me on these issues, and that concern is a feature of all their correspondence. Other things come up, but that is the top concern. For example, Elizabeth says that she fears the
“risk of males choosing to change their legal gender in order to gain access to spaces and opportunities reserved for women”.
That is her main concern.
However, the Gender Recognition Act simply allows a trans person to change their birth certificate and have it reissued. It does not change what is in the Equality Act. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Monmouth did not want to take more interventions earlier, but my question to him would be: are we saying that we want to roll back the 2010 Act in the reforms? Allowing trans women into women-only spaces is provided for under that Act. If that is what is being questioned, it is a rolling back of the Act, and not a reform.
Let us think about what would happen if a man did self-declare as a woman using any of the gender recognition reform proposals, and then tried to enter a women-only space for nefarious purposes. This chap is so intent on doing that that he gets himself a new birth certificate. By the way, it is a fallacy that people can just say, “Oh, I’m going to decide this afternoon to change my gender.” Nothing in the reforms suggests that someone can just decide to do that on a whim one afternoon, or say, “In the morning I’m going to be a woman and in the afternoon I’m going to be a man,” or anything like that.
The proposed reforms are proportionate and considered. They are not knee-jerk and they understand that such decisions are some of the most personal that a human gets to make. It is about who they are and how they fundamentally identify. It is not something that people do lightly. However, let us say that someone did want to do that.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Lady is setting out a hypothetical situation, but a number of countries already have simple self-declaration administrative processes for gender recognition: Argentina, Denmark, Ireland, Malta, Norway and Colombia. Is she aware of Government single-sex service providers or criminal justice sectors in those countries reporting negative impacts from that implementation?
Layla Moran
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, because as far as I am aware there are none. A lot of the concern comes from hypotheticals, anecdotes, and often very simplified versions of much more complex events. As a former science teacher, I care a lot about the evidence. What is the evidence about what has happened? I will return to the hon. Lady’s point, which was very well made, in a moment.
Let us assume that someone wants to go into a women-only space for nefarious purposes. That would be quite a stupid thing to do because, apart from anything else, if an offence was committed it would show evidence of premeditation, which would increase the person’s sentence. Also, had the certificate been gained for the sole purpose of entering such a space to commit a crime, that would be a separate crime under the Fraud Act 2006. If someone was intent on harming women, that would be one of the stupider ways of doing it.
Quite apart from that, it is a hypothetical situation that is removed from what the evidence shows. There is no evidence at all to show such harms in countries such as Malta and Norway over the past few years. Importantly, because of how the Equality Act works, we do not even have to look further afield—just look at this country, where the Act already allows self-identification for those who are even considering going through the process. What evidence is there from this country of any problems with self-declaration, which has been going for eight years now? There is none.
This has the signs of a moral panic being whipped up to demonise a community. I am not saying that my constituents are doing that, but there are some people who are intent on rolling back the Equality Act, and I am deeply concerned that they are not being called out for wanting to do so.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady share my concern that when the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) cited violence against women, he was conflating two issues? Violence against women is mainly carried out by men; as the hon. Lady rightly points out, it has nothing to do with men identifying as women. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about violence against women, that is what he should focus on.
Layla Moran
Hear, hear—I completely agree. It is really important to ensure that we are talking about the right thing. Violence against women is still ubiquitous. It still happens in our society and on our streets, and it should absolutely be called out, but these reforms are entirely separate. We need to come together on this. I am curious about whether the hon. Member for Monmouth has attended meetings in this House on violence against women.
A 2016 report by the Women and Equalities Committee found that the process of gender recognition was bureaucratic and costly. The Government’s LGBT survey, published in July this year, reported that trans women were being deterred from applying for gender recognition for some of the same reasons that I spoke about earlier; it noted that 93% of those who wanted gender recognition had been deterred from applying for it. The respondents to the Government consultation are not people who are thinking about changing their gender on a whim, but people who have grappled with the issue for a very long time. Their concerns are worth listening to.
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that trans people, who face huge barriers and a medicalised process, are being damaged psychologically by our legal framework? The core of why we are here as elected representatives is to make the lives of our constituents better and to ensure a level playing field. If we do not act and work together, more trans people will commit suicide—we already know the statistics—and young trans people will face more significant barriers. We absolutely must work together to understand and address their concerns and make sure that their voices are heard.
Layla Moran
I absolutely agree. Our laws were groundbreaking when they were introduced in 2004, but our law on gender recognition now lags behind those of other countries. It disadvantages trans people on some very questionable grounds.
I am not sure on what basis the people who raise concerns about gender recognition feel that it is wrong. It is one of our values that there should be a level playing field in our society. Society is evolving and becoming more complex, and we are rightly recognising more intricate parts of it.
It is incumbent on us as British politicians to protect minority groups and understand the issues that they face. The reforms are a logical next step in our evolving understanding of a very small and vulnerable group of people in this country. Yes, many are children when they first start to discover the situation, but as a former teacher and as the Lib Dem education spokesperson, I believe that schools are doing their utmost to make children feel that it is okay to be different and have a space in which they can discuss the issues. To suggest that that extends to encouraging them to change their gender is a step too far for the role of schools.
I am pleased to support the reforms of the Gender Recognition Act, as well as maintaining my support for women-only services, which remain vital for many. The points made about violence against women and about the need to protect women from men who sexually abuse them are absolutely right, but being a feminist and being a supporter of trans rights are not in conflict; the two can absolutely sit together. We need to look at the evidence, not just about what the law currently says, but—
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Lady says that she supports women-only services. By “women-only”, does she mean anyone who defines themselves as a woman?
Layla Moran
The hon. Gentleman brings me on to my next sentence. I was about to say that trans women are women. Moreover, trans rights are human rights.
I am very grateful for today’s debate, because it has allowed some of us to broaden and deepen the debate and to start to set the record straight.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), who raised a number of issues. It is important that the debate remains respectful and that we can have a reasonable and decent conversation. I commend the UK and Scottish Governments on their consultations. The Scottish Government consultation received a huge number of responses, more than 60% of which were in favour of the proposals.
On a number of occasions, the hon. Gentleman spoke in over-simplified terms. I must repeat what I said in my intervention: that is not helpful because deepening and expanding the debate about those concerns is vital. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) made an excellent speech. I greatly share her concerns about rolling back on the Equality Act. As her hypothetical example highlighted perfectly, we have to remember that what is essentially identity fraud would be a crime. The fact that 93% of people in the trans community have sought to get support and access services but have been turned away is a shame and a stain on our society.
Yesterday was the Transgender Day of Remembrance—a day when we took a moment to celebrate the incredible contribution that trans people make to our communities, and to reflect and remember our trans siblings who have been killed, committed suicide, faced prejudice or not been able to live or be recognised in a way of their choosing. I firmly believe that today’s debate is about exactly that: living in a way of our choosing, without fear or prejudice, under a legislative framework that supports people to do exactly that.
I started school in the year section 28 was introduced. Section 28 meant that schools and teachers could not talk to students openly about their sexual orientation or gender identity without fear of losing their jobs. So much legislation related to LGBTI rights has been, and still is, based on fear rather than acceptance, but we have come a long way in all parts of the UK. I commend the Minister and her Government on their work, as well as the other Governments around the UK—particularly the Scottish Government, who have gone a little bit further. I hope that at some point the Minister and I can meet to discuss how scrapping the spousal veto in Scotland has meant greater equality for trans people.
Section 28 was scrapped in 2003. By then I was halfway through my university degree. I grew up believing that, if I came out, I could not live a normal life and I would not have equal rights. I am an ardent feminist and an openly gay MP. I am not about to shut the door on the equality of trans people just because people like me now have greater equality. Those of us in the LGBTI+ community, and all of us who believe in equality and enjoy greater equality, must do all that we can to support others who are marginalised and discriminated against. Although the legislation on gender recognition was groundbreaking in 2004, it is now out of date. Medicalising and marginalising people who are trans is absolutely wrong.
We recently celebrated a new chapter in Scotland for LGBTI people. Inclusive education has become a reality—the UK Government are also working on that. I want to take a moment to recognise Liam Stevenson and Jordan Daly from Time for Inclusive Education, plus all the many organisations that have supported us with their briefings today, including Stonewall Scotland, LGBT Youth Scotland and the Scottish Trans Alliance, which worked on the legislation and policies in Scotland alongside John Swinney, Angela Constance and Christina McKelvie.
I appreciate that sexuality and gender identity are two very different things, but I faced challenges in terms of coming to my sexuality. I did not come out until I was 32. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be for somebody who is trans who is trying to operate in a system where their transition is medicalised, where they have to travel hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles—as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon mentioned, many trans people feel that going abroad is their only choice.
I have met a number of young trans people in my Livingston constituency, some pre-op, some post-op. The challenges they have faced are truly heartbreaking. Even in Scotland, which came second top in inclusiveness on the LGBTI global index, we still have a significant way to go. Living in a country and society where someone’s orientation or identity does not have legal recognition, and where they do not have equal rights, is corrosive to the soul. At the core is the need to reform the legislation—changing our societal view and structures will follow from changing the law on gender recognition.
I recognise that the debate has become very polarised, which is a source of great sadness to me. I do not think it helps when the media sensationalise. There are cases where systems are being abused, and we must recognise and address those concerns, but we must not make policy based on a few individuals who seek to abuse the system. There will always be those who seek to abuse the system. That is regrettable and those people should be dealt with appropriately, but we should not make policy on that basis.
Danielle Rowley
As the hon. Lady has rightly pointed out, a small minority would seek to cause others harm. However, more than half of trans people in the UK have attempted suicide and 84% have said that they have experienced suicidal thoughts. Does the hon. Lady agree that a lot more needs to be done to protect and support them?
Hannah Bardell
I could not agree more. The hon. Lady makes a very powerful point. It is a stain on our society that many trans people feel so marginalised. In this debate and in the wider discussion, we must do all that we can to raise our voices to show our support and ensure that our policies and our laws properly support and recognise them.
The Scottish Government consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 ran from 9 November 2017 to 1 March 2018. There were 15,697 responses and 60% of respondents were in support of the Government’s proposals. It is important to recognise and understand why 40% were not in favour, but those are the figures none the less.
The hon. Member for Monmouth raised a number of concerns about domestic violence and women’s services. I have a few quotes from organisations in Scotland for him. The chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland, Sandy Brindley, said that the most important thing to say was that the proposed legal changes
“should make no difference to the provision of women-only services – that’s where some confusion has arisen. There isn’t any Rape Crisis which would ask to see documentation of gender.”
I mentioned Linda Rodgers of Edinburgh Women’s Aid, who said that
“there are concerns out there that our service could in some way be abused”
by allowing people to self-declare their gender. She said she had not heard that from the organisation’s staff or board. She continued:
“The reality is that any service has the potential to be abused, and we would deal with that, whatever direction it came from on a case by case basis...I don’t think this should be used as a reason to restrict the rights of a particular group.”
Many people are concerned about young people. Stonewall has said that accessing legal recognition would have a hugely positive impact on trans young people’s health and experience in education. Like all young people, trans young people get on better at school and college when they are supported to be themselves, which is particularly important given the alarming rates of transphobic bullying happening in Britain’s schools and the impact that that has on trans young people’s mental health. Lowering the age at which young people can obtain legal recognition would also raise awareness of trans young people’s needs and support schools and colleges to address the misconceptions and stereotypes that fuel transphobic bullying.
Stonewall provided a case study from a woman called Susan:
“My daughter deserves to have the legal status and identity that matches who she is. I don’t understand why people can’t accept that everyone has a right to live their life being true to themselves, as long as it doesn’t break the law or impact negatively on anyone else.”
Earlier in the year, I visited Malawi and met a number of trans activists and heard their stories. They live in a country where it is illegal not just to be trans, but to be gay. Trans people have no legal standing in that country. One of the activists had been attacked in their workplace purely on the basis of being trans. They went to the police, and were told to go home, dress in their proper identity and come back—only then could the crime be recorded. That is a world away from where we are. The mental and physical toll on those activists was terrifying.
We absolutely have to recognise that changing gender is not something that anybody would do lightly. Should it be done for nefarious reasons, it would be very rare and should be dealt with appropriately.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. She said that the experience in Malawi is a world away. Sadly, 41% of trans people have experienced a hate crime in the past year. I know from talking to some of my trans constituents that that is consistent with their experience. In reality, do trans women not need precisely the same protection from male violence and access to safe spaces that other women need?
Hannah Bardell
I absolutely agree.
I hope the hon. Member for Monmouth and others who have concerns will be reassured by the fact that women’s groups such as Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Zero Tolerance, Engender, Equate Scotland, Close the Gap and the Women 50:50 campaign have come out in support of the proposed changes in Scotland, as have their equivalent organisations in the UK. We must recognise that there are concerns and we must address them, but we absolutely must hold a mirror up to those who are marginalising and attacking trans people and their rights. There is a groundswell of support for equality and for a change in the law to ensure that gender identification and the processes that trans people have to go through are not discriminatory at their core. We absolutely must change the law to ensure that they are properly supported, that the law reflects that and that our society reflects that.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) for bringing the debate to the House. It is absolutely right to say that we need to have this discussion. It should have happened sooner—if it had, maybe the void that was created would not have been filled with such hostility.
As many Members have recognised, yesterday was the Transgender Day of Remembrance. I want to reflect on the 369 reported killings of trans and gender-diverse people—one was in the UK—between 1 October 2017 and September this year. I also want to reflect on the number of trans people who, as we have heard, have considered taking their own life, especially students.
It is important that what is discussed in the House is accurate and sensitive. I feel that some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Monmouth were not as sensitive as they could have been. We have to remember that people who are transitioning will be watching this debate, and that we are decision makers and lawmakers. They will be looking at how we address this issue.
David T. C. Davies
It certainly was not my intention to cause any offence to anyone who is trans or otherwise. Perhaps the hon. Lady will educate me a little by explaining which of my comments she thought was insensitive.
Dawn Butler
You made a comment about people who are “unfortunate enough” to suffer from gender dysphoria. That has very negative connotations, just as it used to be said that people were “unfortunate enough” to be gay, to be a woman or to be black. The way you speak was picked up in your talking about simplifying—
Dawn Butler
Sorry, Mr Hosie. The hon. Member for Monmouth simplified cases to sensationalise them, which is unnecessary for this kind of debate.
David T. C. Davies
It was not my intention to cause any offence to anyone who is trans; I have tried to make that clear throughout. My understanding is that gender dysphoria is a medical condition that must be diagnosed. I suggest that, if somebody has gender dysphoria and is unhappy with their gender, that might be an unfortunate situation to be in. By saying that, I am certainly not trying to undermine the rights of anyone who is transgender.
Dawn Butler
I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s comments will slightly reassure the transgender community. The UK’s legislation is so out of date that we are no longer considered a world leader on LGBT+ rights. We were once No. 1—right at the very top. We slipped to third, and we are fourth in this year’s rankings. The International Lesbian and Gay Association’s “Rainbow Europe index” report cites a surge in transphobic media coverage as the reason for our falling down that league table.
The Labour party has a proud record of championing equal rights, including LGBT+ rights. It was a Labour Government who brought in the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and who abolished section 28 and created civil partnerships. We need to recognise that LGBT+ people still face widespread discrimination, and it is clear that we must do more to enhance their rights and protections. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is now out of date and needs amending. The issue is about changing sex and gender on birth certificates, and we should talk about the facts. Apart from birth certificates, it is already possible to change one’s name, title and gender marker on all UK identity documents. That has been working well for more than 40 years. In fact, most trans people do not want to go through the indignity of applying for a gender recognition certificate. The Government will have the support of Opposition Members to amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
I will go through a few more facts. Deliberately making a false statutory declaration is a serious crime and is punishable by imprisonment. From the heartfelt contributions that we have heard, we know that changing one’s gender is not done lightly. Reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not affect access to single-sex services and facilities, which has been made clear.
Layla Moran
On the issue of prisons, can the hon. Lady confirm that very high-risk trans women are sometimes not held on the female estate because there are no facilities to house them? Depending on a risk assessment, they are sometimes even held in male prisons. That goes to show that the current system already works: if somebody is considered a high risk to the exclusively female population, the system and guidelines already provide for that.
Dawn Butler
That is absolutely correct. In the case that was mentioned, there was a failure of the prison authorities, not of the system. The process should have gone through certain panels before the decision was made—it had nothing to do with the principles of the Equality Act 2010. We have good information that a transgender expert who consulted on that particular case was overruled. The failure of Leeds prison authorities to act on the expert’s advice arises from the reaction to Vikki Thompson’s tragic suicide in Leeds, which is maybe why that particular case happened. It was a failure not of the system but of the prison authorities.
Labour recognises the rights of all groups to debate the implications of reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004. All views should be listened to and supported, and we have listened to various groups that have vastly different opinions. That does not mean that we will be bullied into taking one side or the other. Decisions and law should be made on the basis of facts and take into consideration the majority, not just people who are sensationalising certain aspects of a particular case. As I have said, with 45% of trans students attempting suicide, the Government’s delay in amending the Gender Recognition Act 2004 has contributed to fraught and toxic debate, from which I hope we can move on.
I have a few questions for the Minister, which I am sure she will appreciate. Will she outline the Government’s planned timetable for reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004, including the publication of their response to the recently closed consultation? Will she outline the Government’s plans to launch their separate calls for evidence on issues faced by non-binary and intersex people, and can she confirm that this will not delay the much-needed reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004? In line with the LGBT action plan, will she provide an update on research on the feasibility of the “Tell Us Once” service as a sustainable model for trans people to update their name and gender only once across multiple Departments? I am sure this is the case, but just for clarification, will the Minister confirm that trans people will not lose any rights under the Gender Recognition Act reforms?
I will conclude by quoting a letter from a Labour activist, Heather Peto, but before I do so I want to thank the organisations that fed the views in to us, including Unison, Stonewall, DIVA magazine, my LGBT advisory panel, LGBT Labour and our parliamentary Labour party LGBT group. When we make legislation in this place, it is important that we listen to people’s lived experiences. For too long, laws have been made for people, about people, without their having a place around the table.
Danielle Rowley
I spoke to a young trans woman who found herself homeless. She told me that she had been put into an all-men hostel and was scared for her life. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must make law to protect all women, and that must absolutely include trans women?
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Trans women suffer from abuse, violence, domestic abuse and assault in the streets, just as every other woman does. We need to recognise the intersectionality of women, including trans women; we often do not. Often, only some women are recognised and have a privileged position.
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Lady has made an excellent contribution. I just want to share with hon. Members an excerpt from Baroness Helena Kennedy’s excellent book, “Eve Was Shamed”, about the experience of trans prisoners, which illustrates the hon. Lady’s point excellently:
“One of the most distressing cases I ever conducted was defending a young transgender woman who had been raped and vaginally damaged by a former partner. She had gone to the police and reported the violation only to be greeted with ridiculing asides and suppressed laughter. The case pre-dated the Human Rights Act and reforms in rape law and the Equality Act. Her experience at the hands of the police was so wretched that she decided to withdraw the allegation whereupon the police charged her with perverting the course of justice.”
That was a long time ago and things have moved on, but such cases show that there must be no rolling back of rights.
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend—I will refer to her in that way—for that intervention. That feeds nicely into the letter from Heather, who has been trans for many decades. She said:
“Not so long ago, I was assaulted in a club when a stranger came over and roughly grabbed my crotch and breasts ‘to see if I was a woman’. I would call that sexual assault, but the police with stretched resources gave it low priority as it was a ‘lad having a laugh when drunk’. Being pushed over and abused in the street has also become common place again. When it happens now, myself and other trans people have to weigh whether it is worth reporting it to the police at all. Is your indignity worth the time it takes to go through all the police processes, the triggering of old memories of being sexually assaulted and the police’s lack of concern? For the more minor assaults usually it isn’t, but for the rapes and domestic violence support it is, and transwomen need support and safe spaces just as other women do.”
The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) for securing this debate and enabling us to have this conversation about a very important area of our society in the 21st century. A lot of us are feeling our way in it.
I thank all hon. Members for the respectful tone in which they conducted the debate. I get asked about this issue regularly, and we all share a sense of sadness about the fact that this important debate sometimes gets taken over by loud and sometimes aggressive campaigning by activists. I am sure they hold their beliefs very strongly, but they perhaps lose sight of the fact that we have to be able to talk about this issue in a reasoned, respectful and caring fashion. The vast majority of the public—and, I am sure, parliamentarians—are in the middle. We want to talk about this issue in a caring and careful way so society gets to a position in which we are all comfortable with the consequences of the changes to legislation and so on.
There is perhaps a lack of understanding, so we need to help schools and the other organisations that have been mentioned to understand what the law is so they can apply it confidently in their services. I take that away not just from this debate but from the discussions we have more generally. We have tended to focus on trans women, but of course this debate also involves trans men, which I will deal with towards the end of my speech.
The consultation closed on 22 October. I hope that those who looked at it noted that the questions were very open. We deliberately tried not to lead people down a particular path because we wanted to ensure that we heard a range of views from as many people as possible to see how the current system is working. This debate is about self-identification, but no decisions have been made yet about what if any changes will be made to the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The consultation was about seeking views, so people should not walk away with the idea that we have made up our mind. It is only a couple of weeks since the consultation closed, so no proposals have been put forward about self-identification or other ways in which we can deal with the Act.
The consultation ran for 16 weeks and received more than 100,000 responses, which shows the interest that this topic attracts. My hard-working civil servants are now analysing those responses. In response to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), we hope to have a Government response to the consultation ready in spring next year. She will appreciate that it takes a bit of time to work through 100,000 responses. We also want to ensure that we get the right response, in which we will set out the next steps.
The hon. Lady also asked about calls for evidence regarding intersex and non-binary people. We will publish the call for evidence shortly, and it will not cause delay to the response to the overall consultation. She also asked about the “Tell Us Once” service. Work is ongoing in the Government Equalities Office to deliver that commitment in the action plan.
The hon. Lady asked about trans people’s rights. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth for securing this debate, because it gives me the opportunity to say that there will be no loss of trans people’s rights. This is an open consultation to determine what the law should be and explore people’s thoughts about its application in the 21st century.
I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned that the views of women and women’s groups have not been heard in the consultation. I reassure him that the Government are committed to hearing from everyone, including the groups he mentioned. We do not want to close down the debate. We absolutely do not agree with those who seek to vilify the views of people who do not agree with them. I, for one, have been on the record for some time as having grave concerns about the development of things such as no-platforming in our universities. It seems to me that we should have the confidence to talk about this issue, to express our concerns, to ask questions and to do so in a way that is met with respect so our questions are answered.
David T. C. Davies
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), said that Labour fully supports debate. The Minister has just said the same. Do they both support local authorities—Conservative and Labour—in allowing groups such as Woman’s Place UK and Transgender Trend to hold meetings in local authority buildings?
Victoria Atkins
I take the view that we have the principle of freedom of speech. We should have a debate as long as it does not go beyond the legal markers delineating hate crime and so on. People are sometimes almost too scared to talk about things, which is not right. We do not want a climate of fear in the debate. We want people to be able to express their views respectfully and in a caring and careful manner, so that we ensure that questions are flushed out and answered.
The people whom my officials have met represent what I call the “rainbow full of views”—the spectrum of views on the topic. My officials have met women’s groups, those who run and administer refuges, domestic abuse charities, local government, LGBT groups, unions, service providers, transgender charities, Government Departments, European Governments, and organisations who campaign against reform of the Gender Recognition Act, including Fair Play For Women, Woman’s Place UK and Transgender Trend. They have also met feminist organisations that support reform of the GRA, because our priority with the consultation has been openness and listening.
As the Government consider the options, there are a couple of points I will make clear. Since the Gender Recognition Act came into force, transgender people have been able to acquire a new birth certificate matching the gender they live in. Experience has shown, however, that some do not use the process because they find it to be difficult and intrusive. They are therefore left with a birth certificate that does not reflect the gender in which they live their lives. Without a new birth certificate, transgender people are unable to marry in the gender in which they live their lives, and cannot claim their pensions at the age appropriate to that gender. Those who are a little older live with the worry that their death certificate might carry a name and a gender that have not applied to them for decades. That is one of many reasons for the consultation.
For a transgender person, changing their birth certificate requires them to obtain a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria; to obtain a second report from a medical professional detailing any medical treatment that they have had, such as hormone treatment or surgery; to sign a statutory declaration that they intend to live in their acquired gender until death; to provide proof of having lived for at least two years in their acquired gender; to pay a fee of £140; and, if they are married, to obtain the consent of their spouse. That documentation is sent to the Gender Recognition Panel, which is made up of legal and medical experts, and which makes a decision as to whether the person has fulfilled the requirements. If satisfied, the panel will issue a gender recognition certificate, which is used to obtain a new birth certificate. The transgender person never meets the panel that makes that decision about them.
When the UK Government introduced the 2004 Act, it was world leading, as the hon. Member for Brent Central mentioned. We feel that the time is right to ask whether it is still appropriate and whether it needs improving. We have head from 100,000 people and from colleagues across the House.
Dawn Butler
Does the Minister agree that it is cruel not only that a transgender person does not meet the Gender Recognition Panel, but that they have no right of appeal?
Hannah Bardell
The Minister’s point about the time being right is important. She mentioned a number of organisations that she has met, but I am concerned that some organisations suggest that gender identification is a trend. To me, that is deeply offensive, because it is akin to somebody telling me that my sexuality is a trend, which I absolutely refute in the strongest terms. In reality, trans people across the UK face murder, homelessness and violence. It is important that we change the law as soon as possible.
Victoria Atkins
I am about to move on to something that the hon. Lady spoke about in her speech. She may not know but I have said on record that I would never dream of using the word “trend” in this context, because its use risks demeaning or minimising the journeys that people are on or have been on. To my mind, that comes back to the point about being caring and careful in the way that we discuss the issue. If I may correct her for the record: the organisations I listed have met my officials.
Layla Moran
I want to relay the story of a friend of mine whose spouse was asked to provide that certificate and found it deeply concerning. Their feeling was, “Who am I to stop my partner from defining who they are?” In fact, it stopped them from going through the process. Does the Minister agree that that is problematic and can she confirm that it is being looked at?
Victoria Atkins
We will look at the matter of spousal consent and those responses as part of the consultation.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) gave a moving account of her personal experience, and other colleagues have given accounts of the experiences of people who have been on, or are on, their journeys, and the challenges, or sometimes the heartbreak, that they face. I know from conversations that I have had with trans people that there is often a great deal of sadness in the process of coming to a decision. That is not necessarily their own sadness, but can be the sadness of those around them. I am very conscious of the experiences of people who have been through that and, for me, the key words on the issue are “caring” and “careful”.
I say “careful” because of some of the concerns expressed today. I absolutely understand those who expressed them—for example, about women’s refuges. As a Home Office Minister, I will take the draft domestic abuse Bill through Parliament in the coming months. I know people are concerned that refuges will no longer be able to provide safe spaces for women. May I please make it clear that that is not the case?
Domestic abuse services, including refuges, have robust risk assessment procedures and may exclude anyone who might threaten a safe environment for victims and their children, as well as signposting sources of support for those people whose needs they might not be able to meet. I am very conscious from my conversations with refuge organisations that they take different approaches, which I welcome. We have to be in a situation in which we can offer support and refuge services to people regardless of their lifestyle, background and so on. I absolutely understand people’s concerns and I hope I have been able to offer reassurance to them.
We are committed to maintaining protections for single-sex services and will consider as part of our response to the consultation whether any further action is needed to reaffirm that approach. To be clear, the single-sex exceptions under the Equality Act 2010 allow a service provider to provide a service for women or men if an organisation needs to define it in a way that does not allow a trans person to access their services, or to provide a service to them in a different way. They are able to do that as long as they can show that it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.
The issue of transgender offenders has understandably been raised as well. The case of Karen White in particular has been examined. I want to be clear that the case of Karen White is appalling. There was a series of terrible failings that should never have happened. In the light of that, my ministerial colleagues at the Ministry of Justice are looking again at the decision-making systems that apply to the management of transgender prisoners, as well as how they were applied in that case.
The issue of children is of concern outside the walls of this Chamber. We have no intention of lowering the age at which people may legally change their gender, namely the age of 18. We recognise the increase in referrals of children and adolescents to gender-identity services for people aged under 18, so we have committed to improve our understanding of the impacts on children and adolescents of changing their gender, and to gather evidence on the issues faced by people who were born female and who transition in adolescence. We are not the only country to witness and experience the increase, and we need to understand why it is happening.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth for securing the debate. I hope I have been able to reassure him on some of his concerns, and other hon. Members who hold different views on the concerns they expressed. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that everyone in our society can thrive, and to upholding the rights and protections that all our citizens enjoy. We want to support and protect women; we want to support, protect and improve the lives of transgender people; and I hope that those two ambitions have the support of the House.
David T. C. Davies
Of course, everyone who has concerns about this issue in any direction totally condemns any violence against anyone who is transsexual in any way. Those responsible for physical or verbal assaults, or any other kind of abuse, deserve to be punished with the full force of the law. I have never met anyone who disagrees with that proposition.
I say respectfully to the hon. Members for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) that I have in fact tried to educate myself on the issue of violence against women over a number of years. In fact, I served on the Home Affairs Committee between about 2005 and 2010, when it brought out its reports on forced marriage and female genital mutilation, issues that I raised on many occasions in the House of Commons. I was glad when legislation was passed, especially on FGM, although I am disappointed that despite all the laws and fine words, there has still not been a single conviction for female genital mutilation—that probably wanders a little from the topic, but violence against women is an important issue.
On the consultation, I am not surprised that so many people seem to be in favour of changing the law. Mermaids, a publicly funded body, has published online a primer encouraging people to fill it out, which is not right.
The important thing—it comes down to this—is that if people believe a trans woman is a woman, then it is not possible to protect female sex-segregated spaces in the way that many campaigners would like. Many people do not accept the proposition that a trans woman is a woman. A trans woman is a trans woman, worthy of respect, absolutely deserving of protection under the law against discrimination, or physical or verbal assault, but not necessarily eligible to access single-sex areas.
Finally, I very much welcome the fact that on all sides at least lip service is given to the idea of debate. I hope the Minister sets an example by encouraging any local authorities that wish to in their areas to allow groups such as Woman’s Place to hold meetings, and by meeting with some of those groups. To the best of my knowledge, such meetings have not yet taken place, although I have certainly tried to facilitate them. I look forward to that happening in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered proposals to allow self-identification of gender.
Rape Myths and Juries
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rape myths and juries.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.
In August, I submitted a freedom of information request to the Crown Prosecution Service about the conviction rates for rape. The answer revealed that less than a third of prosecutions brought against young men result in a conviction. Men aged 18 to 24 in England and Wales are consistently less likely to be found guilty than older men. Only 32% were convicted last year—the lowest of any age group. Successful prosecutions against men aged 25 to 59 were much higher at 46 %. The Guardian used those figures in its recent excellent series on rape.
Given that the vast majority of rapes are acquaintance or date rape, the conviction figures suggest a reluctance by juries to find young men guilty of rape. We need to explore the reasons behind that and how rape myths, stereotypes and attitudes affect juries. The rates may reflect the prevailing attitudes in society, and therefore of juries, towards young women, who are often blamed for their own rape.
The number of men charged with rape in England and Wales has fallen to its lowest level in a decade—a 23% decline in 2017-18, according to the Crown Prosecution Service’s annual “Violence against Women and Girls Report”. Yet at the same time, the number of rapes reported to the police soared to more than 41,000 in 2016-17, with a massive 150% increase in the last five years. Despite fewer charges, there was a 13% fall in prosecutions and a 12% decrease in convictions.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend highlights some figures; according to latest figures, just over half the reports of rape resulted in a charge. Of the cases that were prosecuted, 42% did not result in a conviction. The most vital thing for women who report rape is that they are believed. Does she agree that those figures cause serious harm to that principle?
Ann Coffey
I agree; women must have confidence when reporting rape that they will be believed and taken seriously, and that they will have justice.
There has been a 72% increase in the number of cases that have been administratively finalised—meaning the police have closed them after receiving advice from the CPS. A Guardian article on 24 September quoted a whistleblower who said that prosecutors were being told to
“ditch ‘weak’ rape cases to improve figures”.
That advice could severely limit victims’ access to justice and lead to cases involving younger victims, students or those with mental health issues being less likely to result in a charge. The overwhelming majority of rape victims still choose not to report to the police for fear of not being believed, yet the prevailing narrative in some sections of the media is that lying about rape is common. The opposite is true. Only 17% of those who experience sexual violence report it to the police, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics for March 2017. The CPS estimated in 2012 that only 3% of the 1,149 cases heard may have been malicious.
Juries view evidence through the lens of prevailing stereotypes shared with the wider community. Rape myths still dominate in our culture, including that a woman who has drunk a lot cannot complain if she is raped, that it is rape only if someone has injuries, that real rapes are done by strangers in alleyways, that it is a crime of passion and that women invite rape by what they wear. Research shows that stereotypes about how rape victims are expected to behave remain prevalent in society and, by extension, in juries. There is still a lack of understanding about why a woman might not report an assault immediately or might not fight, or how a victim of a sexual assault might behave in the immediate aftermath of an attack. There are still huge gaps in the public understanding about what sexual consent actually means.
The End Violence Against Women Coalition commissioned YouGov research, which will be published shortly, that shows confusion among the public about what constitutes rape, particularly concerning the majority of rapes involving acquaintances. Almost a third thought it was not rape if a woman had flirted on a date but had not wanted sex. Juries take those attitudes into the court room with them. Defence lawyers play up those myths in an attempt to rubbish the character of the witness.
Dr Dominic Willmott, an academic at Huddersfield University, conducted a study in 2017 in which he replicated genuine trial environments to assess how attitudes and backgrounds had an impact on juries. The study found that nearly half of jurors in rape cases came to a verdict before deliberation, indicating a predictive relationship between juror demographics, personal experience and psychological make-up, with an impact on verdicts in rape cases. Dr Willmott said the research demonstrated
“that for all the best efforts of the courts, juries are not necessarily offering a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence, particularly within rape cases. Past experiences play a huge role in shaping the person you are, and inevitably affects your view on society. As well as the importance of demographic features of the jurors, attitudes towards rape were found to be the strongest predictor of high numbers of not guilty verdicts.”
We all saw how the culture at the time protected very well-known people such as Jimmy Savile. We saw how young girls who were victims of shocking sexual exploitation in Rotherham and Rochdale were seen as prostitutes who consented to their abuse. Language and how we talk about behaviour is very important; it shapes what we see. The Crown Prosecution Service has said:
“Addressing the low conviction after contest rate in cases involving young defendants represents a challenge for the entire criminal justice system.”
The Ministry of Justice responded to an open e-petition in July this year that called on the Government to produce compulsory training about rape myths for all jurors in rape trials by appointing Professor Cheryl Thomas to gather data from experienced jurors at a range of courts throughout the country. The Government response to the petition said:
“We know that rape myths exist within our society, and therefore jurors could believe these myths and that this could affect their interpretations of the facts of the case.”
In the light of the shocking figures on charging and convictions there should be a stronger response, because this situation can only get worse without action.
I would like an urgent independent inquiry that would include some controversial areas, such as a review of the use of juries in rape cases; jury vetting; specialist rape courts; current law; judicial directions; examination of the falling number of rapes charges by the CPS; low conviction rates for rape, especially date and acquaintance rape; the role of expert witnesses in rape cases; pre-recorded cross-examination; and sexual history evidence rules. I absolutely accept that the justice system needs to ensure that the innocent go free and the guilty are sentenced, but my concern is that conviction rates indicate that the scales of justice are tipped against the victim. The most common cause of unsuccessful prosecutions in rape cases is jury acquittal.
Other countries have been pondering this difficult question. The Law Commission in New Zealand published a report in December 2015 that concluded:
“The nature of sexual violence is such that, as a form of criminal offending, it is not well suited to fact-finding by a jury comprised of 12 laypersons.”
The German and French court systems have a collaborative court model in which professional judges decide cases with citizens. Sir John Gillen, who issued a report yesterday in response to serious concerns about low conviction rates for rape in Northern Ireland and the polluting effect of rape myths said,
“there is no doubt that there is a growing belief, particularly among young people, that a jury should be replaced by a judge or by a judge and two lay people such as we see in family courts and aspects of youth justice.”
Specialist domestic violence courts were introduced in the mid-2000s. At the time, the prevailing view was that it was the woman’s own fault if she did not leave an abusive husband. New specialist sexual violence courts could draw on experience from those courts of using specially trained staff, ensuring speedy access to victim support services and ensuring that the court is a physically safe space for the victim, for example by using separate entrances and special measures for giving evidence.
The roll-out of the successful pilots in Leeds, Liverpool and Kingston of section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which allows pre-recorded cross-examination, has still not happened. Those pilots, which involved vulnerable child witnesses, were evaluated as very successful in improving the quality of cross-examination and stopping bullying attacks on the character of witnesses. I hope that the Minister can give us positive news about when pre-recorded cross-examination will finally be rolled out, and that she will consider offering it to victims whose access to a fair trial may be compromised by rape myths.
There is also controversy about the extent of the personal records and data that police request of rape complainants before going ahead with their cases. The nature and extent of the information requested from complainants varies widely across police forces. There is concern that intensive examination of a complainant’s communication and behaviour to establish their “credibility” is too often a proxy for rape myths and discriminatory assumptions. The new Director of Public Prosecutions addressed that issue in his first major speech, saying that rape complainants must have their personal privacy, including their mobile phone records, protected.
Dr Willmott has called for the vetting of juries for preconceived bias. He argues that although judges can tell jurors to disregard certain things, that does not make any difference:
“Our study highlights that even before the case has begun, jurors’ psycho-social make up predisposes them towards particular verdict decisions, making a vetting system for juries increasingly important. By implementing such a system we can reduce existing bias from juries, which should result in a greater number of fairer outcomes.”
There have been calls for experts to be allowed to give evidence about rape myths. There is a case for updating judicial directions to take into account the impact of social media and how it can feed into rape myths—another issue taken up by Sir John Gillen. Baroness Stern raised the impact of rape myths on juries in her 2010 review, quoting a specialist rape prosecutor who said:
“You can forgive juries for finding it hard to convict given the burden of proof and when the defence works so hard to discredit the victim’s case. There is a lot of general misunderstanding about trauma.”
In Scotland, section 275C of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 allows prosecutors to call expert evidence at trial. That would help jurors to understand typical psychological responses to rape.
Currently, UK law does not differentiate between stranger rape and acquaintance rape, which both carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Juries understand the evidence for stranger rape, but complex issues about consent in acquaintance rape are not so well understood. A senior police officer said that
“at the moment we are asking juries to do something incredibility difficult.”
That is true. We ask jurors to make judgments about consent to sex where the victim and the accused are known to each other and the victim may have consented to some sexual activity but not to penetration. It is challenging for juries to judge whether the defendant had a reasonable belief that consent was given, especially when drink was involved. That is where myths and stereotypes kick in.
The consent elements of rape, as outlined in CPS guidelines, are that
“B does not consent to the penetration and A does not reasonably believe that B consents”.
The CPS guidelines go on to state:
“Proving the absence of consent is usually the most difficult part of a rape prosecution, and is the most common reason for a rape case to fail. Prosecutors will look for evidence such as injury, struggle, or immediate distress to help them prove that the victim did not consent, but frequently there may be no such corroborating evidence.”
Sir John Gillen called for a
“discernible shift towards a requirement for some measure of affirmative or participative expression of consent and away from a focus on resistance as a means to prove the absence of consent.”
I have the greatest respect and admiration for members of the public who do jury service, some of whom have to sit through evidence of the most horrifying and brutal crimes inflicted by one person on another. Serving on a jury is indeed a public service. However, I return to my original figures. Juries are reluctant to convict young men of rape. It is no use wringing our hands about that. We cannot have a situation in which young women who have been raped feel that they have no access to justice, because that undermines the whole justice system.
Ministers need to take strong action, including a fundamental review of the whole system. They must take the lead to forge better public understanding of rape myths and what constitutes consent. Sir John Gillen, who suggested a large-scale publicity campaign and training for juries, said:
“Jurors don’t just land from the moon, they are people like you and me.”
A perfect storm is developing in which juries are reluctant to convict young men who are charged with rape, so the CPS is reluctant to prosecute and the police are therefore reluctant to refer. The result is that victims will stop coming forward and young women will be denied justice. The danger is that we will be thrown back to the dark days, when victims of abuse were silenced and dared not speak out.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for securing this incredibly important debate. She has done a significant amount of work to support young people in the criminal justice system and is a committed advocate for victims of sexual exploitation. Thanks to her hard work, all references to “child prostitute” were removed from legislation and the victims are properly recognised.
Rape is an extremely serious criminal offence that can lead to lifelong trauma for victims and their families. I take extremely seriously the great courage, support and perseverance it can take for victims to go through the criminal justice system in pursuit of justice—the bravery it takes to report the crime to the police, and the emotional strain and trauma of having to recount details of the incident to the police and then the CPS during the investigative stages. We know that the court process is often intrusive, uncomfortable and intimidating. It is vital that our court process should not aggravate and compound the victim’s experience.
In responding to this important debate, I will highlight the importance of evidence in this area, say what the Government are doing to protect rape victims, and finally look to the future. The hon. Lady, who began her speech with the facts she obtained in response to an FOI request, is aware of the importance of evidence and rightly highlighted a number of important statistics. She is right to underscore that more people are coming forward to report rape, which is very much to be welcomed, and to recognise that that huge social change followed much work by campaigners and a change in attitude towards women. She also highlighted that, despite that rise in reporting, the number of prosecutions has fallen. That is disappointing and worrying.
The hon. Lady said that convictions are falling. Although that is true for the period 2017-18, it is interesting to note that in June 2018 the conviction rate for sexual offences was at its highest in a decade, at 68%. It is therefore possible that, when cases reach court, they are more likely to result in a conviction. She also rightly pointed out that there are fewer convictions in cases where the complainant and the accused are known to each other and aged between 18 and 24.
In those circumstances, this is an important debate. We need to look into these issues to ensure that reports of rape are taken seriously at every stage of the process. At the heart of the debate are the questions why convictions are not being secured and why juries are not convicting. The hon. Lady said she believes there is reluctance on the part of juries to find young men guilty of rape because of rape myths in our culture. There is a fear that some believe that women who have drunk have only themselves to blame, and that juries acquit on the basis of their prejudices and attitudes to rape, rather than the facts and issues before them.
If that were right, it would be appalling. Women who come forward should have confidence that they will get justice. They should be judged on the facts presented to the court. It is important when we consider changing policy that those changes are driven by evidence, so I am pleased that we are currently analysing this important issue and looking at the reasons why juries come to their conclusions in rape cases. As the hon. Lady mentioned, Professor Cheryl Thomas, the leading academic expert on juries and jury research, is currently considering these issues. She has been commissioned by the president of the Queen’s Bench Division to conduct empirical research with jurors to help inform our understanding of the impact of rape myths and the development of future training and guidance for jurors.
Professor Thomas will be considering two things that are pertinent to this debate: first, to what extent jurors who have served on real trials believe myths and stereotypes about rape, and secondly, to what extent further guidance to jurors, in the form of educational materials, might be helpful in ensuring that myths and stereotypes are not applied in cases of rape or sexual offence. That evidence will help us to understand the bias of juries and help to inform policy in that critical area. Once we have the evidence base, we can consider the matters identified by the hon. Lady, who raised interesting and important questions.
Protecting women—particularly young women—when they go through the criminal justice system is vital to ensuring justice, and across Government we are taking a number of steps in that area at every stage of a woman’s journey. During the initial stages of a complaint the Metropolitan police has trained officers and frontline staff to deal with victims of rape when they first come forward, to ensure accurate recording. All CPS prosecutors who work on rape cases have specialist training on stereotypes, rape myths and consent. The CPS has almost doubled the number of specialist prosecutors in its dedicated rape and serious sexual offences unit, and it has enhanced training and improved the support that it offers to victims through criminal proceedings.
When a victim goes through court, we must ensure that they are protected and get justice. We are committed to rolling out pre-recorded cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses in Crown court centres in England and Wales. The review of disclosure by the Attorney General’s Office, published on 15 November, referred to the importance of ensuring that complainants are not subjected to unwarranted intrusion into their privacy, or deterred from reporting offences or participating in the criminal process. The 2018 “Crown Court Compendium” builds on existing guidance, giving more examples of possible directions and listing situations in which jury directions may be needed in a rape case. Judges can sit on sexual offences cases only if they have undertaken specialist training from the Judicial College. More broadly, we have protected funding of more than £6.4 million for 85 rape support centres across England and Wales, and we have committed to continuing investment—£4 million a year until 2020-21—in sexual assault referral centres.
Let me turn to the questions that the hon. Lady raised about solutions to this problem. She highlighted a number of important questions, and we are thinking carefully about how we can educate jurors in this area. As I mentioned, however, it is important that we approach this issue on the basis of evidence. The judiciary rightly maintain that any course of action should be well considered and informed by empirical evidence, and therefore we will await the outcome of the review by Professor Thomas before taking any steps.
The hon. Lady mentioned a number of important statistics, but it is worth pointing out that there is conflicting evidence on the behaviour of juries in rape cases. In the year ending December 2017, approximately 44% of 5,784 not guilty pleas for sexual offences resulted in a conviction—a higher figure than for robbery and offences of violence against the person. In the same year, the sexual offences acquittal rate was close to the average acquittal rate for all offences, at 56%, and that was lower than the acquittal rate for offences such as the possession of weapons and theft, which were both at 60%.
I am conscious that gender stereotypes unfortunately exist in our society, and I am aware of concerns that they can create an environment that enables violence against women and girls. As jurors are picked from society as a whole, it is possible that rape myths sometimes have an impact on juror decision making, but more research is needed firmly to establish that link. For that reason, I ask for the House’s patience while we await the results of research that is due to report in the new year. I will keep the hon. Lady updated on any developments, and I will be happy to meet her when that evidence is produced.
Question put and agreed to.
Nursing: Higher Education Investment
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered investing in nursing higher education in England.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I am proud to speak on an issue close to my heart. Before I entered Parliament, I was privileged to work as a nurse for almost 40 years, and last year my daughter graduated as a nurse. Nursing is an incredible profession, a fulfilling career and full of opportunities for those who choose that rewarding path. Nurses are the most trusted profession in Britain, a position they have held for years, with 96% of the public trusting nurses to tell them the truth. It may come as little surprise to hon. Members that politicians are the least trusted. Let all of us in this House show political leadership now and listen to what nursing students and nurses are telling us. They are telling us what must happen to meet the needs of communities across England.
Everywhere there are people, there are nurses, but they are not necessarily doing what we might think they are doing. Yes, nurses connect with patients and families to understand what people need, but they are also diagnosing, prescribing, performing surgery, creating care plans, delivering treatment, overseeing clinics, managing hospitals, working as chief executives and designing primary care services.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned that nurses are valued, but if the Government really valued them, they would give them a decent wage increase and restore the education maintenance grants and, if necessary, bursaries as well. Does she agree that that would demonstrate how nurses are really valued in this country?
Eleanor Smith
I do agree, and my hon. Friend will hear me refer in my speech to what he has just said.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, and I commend what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said about the proposition that we need to pay our nurses properly to value them truly. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West agree that it is important that we have specialisms too, and that one specialism we require more of across the country is Parkinson’s nurses?
Eleanor Smith
Absolutely. That is where nursing is important. Nurses are becoming specialists in Parkinson’s, Turner syndrome and sickle cell, all of which are specialisms that will be required in the future of nursing.
Nurses are working in cutting-edge research on ethics, safety, improvements to care and new ways of working. They are leading from the frontline, and as professionals they should be at the heart of strategic policy making. Nursing is at a critical junction in our healthcare and systems, yet the Government are without an independent chief nursing officer after the removal of that critical leadership post from the heart of the Department of Health and Social Care. That is an insult to the nursing profession.
How many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are regularly contacted by their constituents about health and social care issues—people struggling, writing about services being reduced or cut, unable to access support without help? Increasingly, that is happening because there are not enough staff to run things safely. Across the country, nurses are clear that staffing for safe and effective care is their most important priority and their biggest worry.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend accept that in the specialisms in particular—in my own area, the problem is with learning disabilities—there are such reduced numbers going through training because of the loss of the bursary, that it will have a huge impact on care homes and other forms of care delivery? Does she see that as a total tragedy?
Eleanor Smith
I do, and I will talk about that in my speech and touch on the lack of nursing students coming into those particular areas because of the bursary’s disappearance.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a very sound speech. Does she agree that it is a completely false economy that, as a student nurse told me just today, of the 45 recruits to mental health nursing in his cohort, under the new financial regime only 18 remain on the course in its second year? We desperately need those nurses—what a price to pay!
Eleanor Smith
My hon. Friend is totally right. Again, I will address that point in my speech, but it is noted. I am glad that my hon. Friends are intervening, because it shows the importance of this debate on nursing and the lack of it. I am glad the nurses came to my hon. Friend and told her what it is like. The situation is beyond shocking. There are almost 42,000 vacant nursing posts in the national health service in England. Without policy and funding intervention, that will grow to almost 43,000 by 2023.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. On the current 42,000 shortfall, does she agree that with so many European Union nationals potentially leaving the health service, that figure could well be compounded in future?
Eleanor Smith
That is definitely so. My hon. Friend is completely right, and with the way Brexit is going, that is understandable. People working in the NHS understand that.
Without policies and funding intervention, as I have said, the shortfall will grow to almost 43,000 by 2023, and that number is on the low side. It does not account for the one third of nurses who are due to retire in the next 10 years. It does not include nursing shortages in social care or public health. Students are being forced to plug the gaps. They should be learning, but instead they are providing care before qualification, without supervision and before they are ready—all because we do not have enough nurses. That is deeply unfair to students. It is risky for qualified nurses and it is unsafe for patients, and all because no one wants to pay for the solution.
Poor workforce planning in health and care is not new. Even in my time, policy makers pursued a boom-to-bust approach, rather than ensuring that supply was available to meet demand. Six years on from the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it is fundamentally unclear who is accountable for workforce strategy. As a result, it is not being done by anyone. Earlier this year, Health Education England held a consultation, but Professor Ian Cumming has failed to deliver a workforce strategy. We are told that it will be dealt with in the new 10-year plan. Mr Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, has been handed an additional £20.5 billion a year for the NHS by 2023-24, and it is widely understood that his long-term plan must address the extreme gaps in our nursing workforce by fixing the supply issue and providing funding.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I do not think it should focus only on the bursary, as some of the letters have—important though that is—but on the Government’s lamentable failure to bring in nursing apprenticeships, which provide such an important route for many youngsters from working-class areas in the Black Country, including areas in her constituency and mine.
Eleanor Smith
My right hon. Friend covers a point about apprenticeships that I will address in my speech, because what we are saying is that it is one of the routes, but not the only route.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on a topic that is important to us all. The Royal College of Nursing has made it very clear that the priority for the bulk of investment in nursing education must be the three-year undergraduate degree, because that is the fastest and safest route for growth at scale. Does she agree with that, and does she agree that we must not try to do nursing training on the cheap?
Eleanor Smith
Absolutely; I totally agree. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We should not be doing the training on the cheap. I will try to address that point in my speech.
There is a huge risk that the long-term plan will be like previous plans and that Simon Stevens will not provide or fund a solution. He is spending money on services that cannot be staffed. He is creating new posts that cannot be filled, because trained and qualified registered nurses to fill those posts do not exist. I wonder whether the Prime Minister knows that nurses do not grow on trees, just as money does not. The five year forward view substantially failed to create nurses. In fact, during that time, the opposite happened: we lost thousands of nurses. I ask right hon. and hon. Members what on earth should be prioritised above growing the number of nurses.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I agree that this is a really important issue and we must do all we can to support the nurses of the future, but does the hon. Lady agree that it is worth recording that there are 13,000 more nurses on wards today than there were in 2010?
Eleanor Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but unfortunately, as someone who has worked on the wards, I have to say that we do not see it; it does not feel like that.
Simply put, there is no long-term plan without a registered nursing workforce. Whatever ambition the Secretary of State and Simon Stevens have must be matched by credible growth in the number of registered nurses.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. It is not for me to rule on whether people should or should not give way, but I should say that it is not really on for people just to wander into the Chamber and seek to intervene within two minutes of doing so. I say that gently, but it is not for me to decide who should be given way to; that is a matter for the speaker.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
That is not the point, if I may say so to the hon. Lady. Would the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) like to give way?
Eleanor Smith
I will take this intervention and then I would like to make some progress.
Karen Lee
I will be brief. There was mention of how many nurses there were on the wards. I was a nurse on a ward, and I am getting older. The drop by one third in the number of applications means that, even with the new nurses, we do not have the number of people to fill the vacancies. The Prime Minister makes great play of how much money there will be for all these nursing vacancies. If nurses are not trained and people are retiring and those places are not being filled by new nurses, how do we do it?
Eleanor Smith
I will address that in my speech. I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention.
I welcome the public commitment made by the Secretary of State at the Royal College of Nursing on 31 October to invest in growing the number of nurses through higher education, including through the long-term plan, because I feel that finally someone is paying attention. The Secretary of State has said that he will look into the possibility of introducing safe nurse staffing legislation. He has said that he will explore anything that might help to address the problem we face. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State means it, because he and Simon Stevens have the power to fix this mess with proper funding and intervention.
That brings me to the crux of the debate. We have to grow our nursing workforce, so the only question that we need to answer is this: how do we fund what we know is the fastest and safest way to do that at scale, in the light of our crisis? Higher education is the best and most cost-effective way to ensure that we have the right number of registered nursing staff, with the right skills and experience, which patients need and deserve. New routes into nursing, which are welcome if done right, still cannot educate anywhere near enough nurses to an appropriate skill level to meet the current need, let alone the future one. It is time to fix the supply pipeline and for the Secretary of State and Simon Stevens to stand up and be counted.
In 2016, the Government removed the NHS bursary and replaced it with a student loan. The £1.2 billion that was taken out of healthcare higher education was framed as a saving, but where did it go? What did it save? Was it used to grow the number of nurses? The stated purpose of the Government’s reform was to increase the number of nursing students. It is against that goal that the impact of the Government’s reforms must be judged.
Let me bust a few myths. I expect the Minister to say, “The old bursary model placed an artificial cap on the number of nurse training places that universities could offer students.” That is factually untrue. Funding of nursing student numbers has always been a political choice. It has always been up to the Government to choose what they want to fund. I expect the Minister to say, “The loan model has not made it less attractive to apply.” In each year since the reform, applications to nursing courses have fallen. In September 2018, nearly 1,800 fewer nurses were due to start at university, compared with September 2016.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the robust way in which she is laying out the case. Since the 2016 reforms, we have seen a significant reduction in the number of people over the age of 25 going into nursing. The Select Committee on Health and Social Care has looked at that. Obviously, people over 25 have brought great value to nursing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes that we have seen have potentially been very detrimental to the nursing workforce?
Eleanor Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; he is totally right. There is a difference between the mature students who come into nursing and those who are 18. There is a great loss to those people and a great loss to us in the public sector—to hospitals, GP surgeries and, indeed, all the places where nurses work in the NHS. It is a great loss, and I will cover some aspects of that issue in my speech.
The only thing that has changed is that loans have been brought in. It is ludicrous to look at the numbers and deny that forcing nursing students on to loans has led directly to a drop in applications. That is exactly what has happened. The result is that the diversity and background of nursing students has changed radically, excluding many who would previously have been able to change their personal and economic circumstances through a rewarding career in nursing. That is the very thing that my hon. Friend was saying.
I expect the Minister to say, “There are still two applicants for every place available for a student to study nursing at university.” It is the current structures that are limiting the system from being able to capitalise on that appetite to study nursing.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a really important debate. It is essential that the Minister addresses the issues raised. Is not the drop-out rate for student nurses a real cause for concern? A student nurse contacted me—I did go to the lobby organised by the Royal College of Nursing this morning—and gave some examples of the mounting costs under the present system. That mental health nurse was telling me about the costs of trains, taxis and accommodation. She works 37.5 hours a week on a placement. Transport to her placement is costing her £500 a month. Surely that has an impact on a person’s ability to sustain their attendance on a course and achieve the necessary outputs.
Eleanor Smith
I could not have put that as clearly as my hon. Friend has. I am glad that student nurses came and explained the situation to him, because that is the very reason why we are having this debate.
With the last bit of control that they have kept since the reform, the Government fund clinical placements, but they do not match the numbers to the volume of routes that they have created. They made nursing students, apprentices and nursing associates all compete for the same places. They did choose to fund, but it was not enough. Now it is a blame game full of finger-pointing. If there are so many people interested in becoming nurses and such high levels of vacant posts, why are the Government not doing more to convert the applicants into nurses?
I expect the Minister will say, “We have introduced new routes to expand the number of nursing staff.” There are nursing degree apprenticeships that few people are taking up, because employers do not have enough cash to release people to study. Nursing associates, who were introduced in a supporting role to the registered nurse, should never be a substitute for registered nurses. These efforts have been small and unpredictable. Most importantly, they have not addressed the heart of what grows the number of nurses safely and at scale: higher education. This is workforce panicking, not workforce planning.
I expect the Minister will say, “This Government have grown the number of nurses working in hospitals,” which is factually true, but distorts the truth that the overall number of nurses has only grown by less than 1% since 2010. While there are 7% more nurses in acute settings, there are 6,500 fewer nurses in the community, 43% fewer district nurses, a quarter fewer school nurses, nearly 5,000 fewer mental health nurses and 40% fewer learning disability nurses. Despite the Government’s rhetoric about moving more care into our communities, the workforce are simply not there to deliver it. Who has overseen that? Ian Cumming of Health Education England, Simon Stevens of NHS England and the Government.
Nursing students spend 50% of their time in placement, learning in the community, a care home or a hospital, but the services are so short of staff that students are being unsafely used to plug the gaps. Due to their placements and studies, they do not have time for part-time jobs to earn extra money. Like other hon. Members, I am contacted by constituents who tell me that they always wanted to be a nurse, but money worries and the pressure they feel are making them reconsider their choice. The personal cost of becoming a nurse is turning people away when health and care services need more growth. This is disgraceful, irresponsible and short-sighted.
However, our leaders have a real chance to secure major change. Nursing students need a new deal. All that is needed is political will, and for people to stand up and be accountable. I demand the bursary is brought back. Our future nurses urgently need more financial support if the Government are ever to tackle the workforce crisis. There needs to be an extension of the hardship funds for those who need more assistance.
At what point do we say enough is enough? How can we fail to act when faced with student nurses trying to balance their placement, part-time healthcare assistant work and trying to finish their coursework? How can anyone begin in a profession when they are already burnt out? It is disrespectful for any of us to stand here and tell stories about how much nurses make a difference to us, without acknowledging their professional expertise and their critical role in transforming services. We have to stop making their jobs harder and pushing people to the brink. No nursing student or nurse should have to grind their teeth and keep going, knowing that shortages mean that vital care is left undone. This situation is unsafe for everyone. It is morally reprehensible.
The Prime Minister gave an extra £20 billion to the NHS. Simon Stevens holds the pen. The Secretary of State will sign off the long-term plan. There is a small window of opportunity to change the future of nursing. We can either propel it forward or drag it back. I am determined to leave my daughter a legacy. I take public service seriously; that is why I went into nursing and why I am an MP.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the long-term plan will deliver the workforce strategy, how it will fulfil the Secretary of State’s commitment to creating more nurses, and how Simon Stevens and Ian Cumming will be held to account over fixing the nursing supply and investing in it. This is our moment to rebuild public trust and confidence, so I end by asking the Minister: what are you going to do?
Several hon. Members rose—
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
There are about seven Members seeking to catch my eye. We need to get to the Front-Bench speeches by 3.30 pm. Therefore, I will impose a five-minute limit on all speeches straightaway. I should also point out that any interventions might reduce that further, so that is in colleagues’ hands.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith), especially because she was a nurse. Incidentally, on her point that nurses are more popular than politicians, when the Houses of Parliament burnt down in the 1830s, the cheers could be heard from Westminster Bridge, where people took out their frustration with politicians.
It is wrong to approach this debate in an aggressive “them and us” spirit. We all aim to increase the funding for nurses to an appropriate and proper level. I agree that nurses do a fantastic job, but we should acknowledge those nurses who are involved in end-of-life care—in my hospital, they work closely with social care staff.
However, before addressing that, I should say that, only last week, I visited my hospital in Henley—Townlands Memorial Hospital—with the previous Minister for Health. I extend an invitation to the current Minister to visit the hospital, which has a unique way of doing business. We and the NHS see it as an exemplar in the country. We spoke to a number of nurses about the services they provide, particularly in relation to the rapid access care unit, which looks after people above a certain age very well—they typically seek treatment there. I pay tribute to those nurses.
In our conversation with the nurses, we raised the point about funding for their education. We had a very mature discussion about the lack of bursaries following Government action. As a result, there was a general agreement that the situation that existed with the bursaries was not particularly helpful to nurses seeking to become part of the nursing profession—the NHS effectively generated a cap on the number of people who applied—and that we need a system that encourages people to become nurses as well as go into other professions. We pointed out that, under the bursary system, 30,000 people who applied to become nurses were rejected, which is not a good situation.
We went on to discuss other things in relation to the nursing profession. In particular, the one thing they saw as inhibiting people from becoming a nurse was the price of housing, which is astronomical in the Henley constituency. We need a tremendous amount of affordable housing, to help people to get a start on the housing ladder, and to provide them with rented accommodation where possible.
In addition to visiting the hospital, I have worked with parish councils to encourage them to provide much smaller buses on much tighter routes to give people the ability to travel from their home to their job.
I have been told that the shortage of staff was due to EU nationals leaving, but when I raised that issue with the matron, it emerged that that was not the case at all—the shortage was due to operational reasons.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
My mother is a retired nurse from the Windrush generation and my sister is in the nursing profession having studied midwifery and having been a health visitor. I value their contribution, and many other contributions, to health and social care in this country. I have some insight and understanding of the challenges that underfunding brings.
Health and social care in England is short of registered nurses. The NHS in England is missing nearly 42,000 nurses —it is estimated that, without significant funding and policy intervention by 2023, the figure will rise to almost 48,000. That is a conservative estimate drawn directly from the system-held data and should be seen as a public interest issue.
This serious underfunding for Royal College student nurses is a crisis in England and action must be taken to address it. England is now the only country in the UK without some form of bursary for the nursing degree. The First Minister of Scotland recently announced that the bursary for nursing and midwifery students in Scotland would rise to £10,000 by the academic year 2020-21. We in England are failing in that respect.
On 31 October, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care publicly committed to investing in nursing education, stating that nursing students must
“get the support they need to complete their training so they can serve in our NHS. That is something we will specifically address in the long-term plan for the NHS”.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the important point is that the nursing course demands full-time study? Someone cannot do a part-time job while they are taking a nursing course. Unfortunately, because of the lack of maintenance grant, in most other areas of higher education students have to do part-time jobs in order to keep themselves alive, but it is not an option for nurses.
Janet Daby
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I will address that crucial issue.
What I need to know, and what student nurses, potential student nurses and England need to know, is this: when will we see the long-term plan to promote the sustainability of the NHS and when will the Government take it seriously? I ask because the number of applicants from England aged 18 decreased by 12% between 2016 and 2018, while the number of applications from those aged 25 and above from England fell by 40% in the same period. Furthermore, a decline in the number of mature students affects specialist areas of nursing such as learning disability and mental health.
In all areas of nursing, not having enough nurses means that the safety of care is a concern—it could become fundamentally unsafe. Frontline staff are compromised, and people seeking to access health and care services are not able to receive the quality of care that they need.
Nursing students spend 50% of their time in clinical practice and—as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin)—nursing courses run longer than many other degrees, which means that nursing students have no opportunity to take on part-time work to supplement their income. They deserve support that recognises the exceptional nature of nursing and we need to invest in their future. If we do that, we would also be investing in our NHS and, indeed, in England.
It is clear that student nurses work long hours, which demands much from them. This can be physically, mentally and in many cases emotionally draining. It is particularly difficult when a student nurse witnesses, for example, a newborn baby dying on a paediatric ward, or when they are caring for terminally ill patients or those with complex mental health needs. If the Government consider that training and the NHS worthy of recognition, when will they properly invest in student nursing careers?
I have been lobbied considerably. My local hospital is overstretched for health and care professionals, including for doctors and nurses. It seeks to recruit from overseas but, in the context of Brexit, the growth of the domestic workforce will be ever more important. The Government and NHS England must invest at least £1 billion a year in nursing, through higher education, as part of their long-term plan for the NHS in England.
Finally, I endorse and praise the work of the “Fund Our Future” campaign and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) for securing this debate.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) on securing a debate on this very important subject and the Minister for Health on his new role.
I do not think there is anybody in Westminster Hall today who would doubt the value of nursing or the importance of good nursing and nurse training. I have worked for my entire career as a paediatrician; I am now a consultant paediatrician. Nurses and midwives have had a significant impact on both my career and my personal experiences. When I worked on a neonatal intensive care unit, many nurses influenced my career. However, there was one in particular—a lady called Mary Palfreman, a nurse in Nottingham—who had a profound effect on me, because she is such a fantastic nurse. On a personal level, I was cared for through several of my pregnancies by a midwife called Marie Robinson, who was able to balance treating me as a medic, who had more knowledge of neonates and babies than the average first-time mum, with treating me as a mum. She recognised that I was a bit of both and perhaps needed a slightly different approach from others—even a unique approach. She treated everybody as she found them, and she is a fabulous woman.
None of us, therefore, would doubt the value of a good nurse and the importance of making sure that there are adequate numbers of nurses. Nursing is a great and varied career, which is something we should be selling more. Nurses have the opportunity to nurse in many different fields. As their career progresses, they can go into administrative roles, managerial roles and specialist technical roles in the community or in a hospital, and develop a good and, at the high level, extremely well paid career.
So what should a good training scheme do? Obviously, it should provide high-quality experience, so that students develop the necessary expertise; it should provide the opportunity for continuing personal development; and it should ensure that there is an adequate supply of nurses. We have a change in demographics: the population is getting older, there are more people with complex health needs, and the population is increasing in size. So we need to ensure that the number of new nurses keeps up with both those developments and the natural attrition of nurses as people retire and so on. We also need to ensure—this is very important to me as a Conservative— that anyone who has the desire and the aptitude to train as a nurse can do so and is not limited by how much money they have or where they are from.
Looking at some of the figures, it is evident there has been a drop in the number of people applying to become nurses, but at this stage there are still many more applications for nursing than there are nursing training places. I was not a parliamentarian when the new policy was introduced, but I understand that the aim behind it was to ensure that more places were available so that more people with the desire and the aptitude could train. The figures I have been given show there are 13,000 more nurses on the wards now than there were in 2010.
In January I was a member of the Select Committee on Health when it produced the nursing workforce report that the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) mentioned earlier. It showed specific shortages in mental health, learning disability and district nursing. I understand that the previous Minister undertook to give up to £10,000 to people training in that field, to try to address the shortages. Will the Minister tell us how that is working and whether it is increasing applications? Also, the Government had recognised specific challenges for people wishing to go back into nursing or to develop nursing as a career after having children. Is the Minister looking into what support can be offered to those with disabilities and those with children to make sure that they are still able to access nurse training and become the fabulous nurses that they can be?
The issue of part-time jobs has been raised. Most of the nursing students I have worked with in my career have had part-time jobs, usually as a healthcare assistant, often on the same ward that they have worked on as a nurse, so I am not sure the point that was made entirely reflects what I have seen.
Finally, I want to mention alternative routes into nursing. There is more than one route to achieving a goal. There are opportunities for people to work as nursing associates. Some of the healthcare assistants I have worked with have done that, and they really enjoy their training. There is also the opportunity to go into a nurse apprenticeship as an alternative way of training while working. That is not for everybody, because people want different things, but it is another way in which we can increase nurse numbers without having an impact on training. I am aware of the time, but will the Minister update us on—
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) on securing this debate, and the RCN student nursing campaign, “Fund Our Future”, on putting the issue firmly on the agenda. I cannot speak with her authority from experience, but I am chair of the all-party group on students and also represent a significant number of student nurses, midwives and allied health professionals in training at Sheffield Hallam University.
It is disappointing that we have to be here debating this issue again, because we have been over the argument several times. I remember the debate that we had in this Chamber in January 2016 when the Government first proposed to end the previous funding system and introduce loans and fees. I remember a powerful speech from the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield). She talked about how hard it was to be a student nurse; how she bore the scars of her nurse training; and how nurses had to learn, take exams and also go through placement changes every eight to 12 weeks, which presented significant challenges for mature students. She also clarified that when we talk about mature students, in many cases we are talking about people not in their 40s and 50s but in their 20s and 30s—people with young families and single mums.
One of the students from Sheffield Hallam University who contacted me ahead of today’s debate was Clary Manners, who echoed many of those points from her current experience. She said she gave up a well-paid job to train as a mental health nurse. She currently does 37 hours a week on placement and has a three-hour round drive there and back each day for the placement. She pays £10 in parking charges when she gets to the hospital. She takes no holidays. She has little spare time because she takes bank nursing jobs to boost her family income, but still her four children are on free school meals because of the struggle to get by on her income.
In the debate in 2016, the hon. Member for Lewes said—this view was echoed throughout the Chamber—that encouraging people to take on debt would
“definitely put them off entering nursing, and to say otherwise is madness.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 217WH.]
The then Health Minister, Ben Gummer, assured us that what the Government were trying to do—you could not make this up—was to share the benefits of the funding system for other students with nursing, midwifery and allied health students. Some of us questioned in what way a £50,000 debt was a benefit, but he was insistent that we would see an increase in applications. Now we know he was wrong. UCAS figures published earlier this year show that applications for the current year were down by a third on the same point in 2016—it is a continuing trend—and by 13% in the past year alone.
The changes have been a particular barrier to those from lower-income families, which is hugely important because nursing and midwifery has been one of the channels of social mobility available for many who do not enter conventional university. We have heard how the profession has traditionally been dominated by mature students, who have been particularly hard-hit in the fall-off in numbers. Overall, compared with when the changes to nursing degree funding were made in 2016, we have almost 1,800 fewer nurses due to start at university. I remind Government Members that although they talk about the 13,000 extra nurses now on the wards, many of them started their training before 2010 under a Labour Government. There is a pipeline for nursing supply, and the current system benefits from the pipeline that we put in place.
There are almost 42,000 nursing vacancies in England. Without action now, that could rise to 48,000 in the next five years. The Government have a responsibility to fix that, and they can do it by introducing a student funding system that is fit for purpose and that can reverse the drop in applications and encourage people to take up nursing in the way that they did previously.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) for securing the debate. I declare an interest: I am the child of two doctors, the sister of a doctor and the wife of a doctor. Through my entire life I have been humbled by how hard all the doctors, nurses and midwives in our NHS work and by their dedication to their patients and the fundamentally huge professionalism that they show every day.
A couple of weeks ago I visited the palliative care team at the J’s Hospice, which helps people towards the end of their life in Chelmsford and across large parts of Essex. I give my huge thanks to the nurses there for the work that they do. As I left, I asked them whether there was one thing that would change their lives that they would really like politicians to do, and they said, “Please can you get us a car park permit so that, when we go out to meet the patients we try to care for in their homes, we do not get a parking ticket if we end up having to park in a residential parking bay?” I do not know whether the Minister can change that, but that is a real ask from them. They do amazing work. One more thing they said was that if there was a little bit of capital funding, they would love some help with some digital technology so that they do not need to go back to base to fill out their patient records.
I am also proud to have a brand-new medical school in my constituency. Anglia Ruskin University has a medical school that opened this autumn. I spoke to the acting vice-chancellor earlier in the week and he told me that things are going really well. It has its 100 students, it is brilliantly vibrant, and it is doing great work. I also asked him how the nursing courses are doing. On the good side, ARU has pioneered alternative routes into nursing. Nurse apprenticeships and nurse associateships are going really well and are very encouraging. They give people who would not necessarily have gone on to a traditional nursing course an alternative route into the career, and it is really appreciated. However, it was pointed out to me that since the bursaries went, there has been a drop in the number of applicants from eight per place to five. So there are still many more people applying for courses than places on the courses, which is good news, as is the fact that the quality of applicants is not dropping.
There is concern, however, at the fact that in some areas there are not enough high-quality applicants because of the changes. Mature students in particular are more debt-averse—that is probably the best phrase—and concerned about taking on a student loan. Those older students tend to be women. Today is a special day for women; the 50:50 Parliament campaign reminds us that women have been able to do the job we do here for 100 years. We need to make sure that women across the country can do the jobs they want to do. The change in nursing bursaries has had an effect on more mature students, especially with regard to entering adult nursing and mental health nursing. That is particularly true in my constituency, although it is less of an issue at other nursing colleges further from London.
The acting vice-chancellor of ARU says that the golden hello that a previous Minister introduced for mental health and learning disability nurses is welcome, but asks whether we could please consider it for adult nursing as well. The previous Minister, now the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, was prepared to give help in the form of an additional £10,000 golden hello to help people in particular targeted areas not to have to take on debt, so can we consider that for adult nursing?
The second ask from Anglia Ruskin is a higher-profile campaign. There was some publicity, and a national campaign encouraging people to consider nursing, but it did not have much visibility. Nurses are wonderful people, and they make a huge difference to all of us. As well as encouraging the idea of supporting them through financial golden hellos when they are needed, we need more publicity about the routes into nursing, and the benefits.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that I shall have to reduce the time available for the last two Back-Bench speakers to four minutes. I apologise.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Last month my mum celebrated her 95th birthday. Like many Irish nurses of her age, 75 years ago she travelled to London from Ireland to start her career in the very first generation of NHS nurses by qualifying as a state enrolled nurse at Warlingham Park psychiatric hospital. Growing up, I saw at first hand just how vital a dedicated, passionate and happy nurse was for the welfare of the patients. That is why I am incensed when I see the treatment of trainee nurses today. Let us be clear. Nursing students are exceptional. Their courses are complex, their training is tough, and they spend significant amounts of time on clinical placement, working all hours of the day and night. They deserve a tuition and living cost funding model that recognises their extraordinary efforts and the importance of those efforts.
England is now the only country in the UK without some form of bursary for the nursing degree. That has crumbled the number of nursing applications and fostered an environment that is utterly unfair to nursing students and completely unsafe for patients. The Government promised that reforms would provide up to 10,000 additional nursing and health professional training places but, since the loss of the bursary, nursing applications in England are down by a third and falling fast. In fact, the 2018 figure was the lowest since nursing courses were first included in the UCAS system.
Nursing must be made an attractive profession for all groups, and restoring the bursary is a fundamental step to achieving that. Now is not the time to experiment with funding models for nursing students. One in three nurses is due to retire within the decade. Ensuring the long-term recruitment of new nurses must be a Government priority. That, of course, is before we take account of the Brexit impact: 75% of NHS trusts have done nothing to prepare for the UK’s departure from the EU. Meanwhile, there is an alarming trend for nurses and midwives to leave the profession before retirement, citing intolerable working conditions. However, it is not a numerical conundrum. It is a national crisis. A fall in student numbers is simply exacerbating our current recruitment shortage and it is patients who are being put at risk.
Ms H, a student nurse in London, contacted me this morning:
“I’ve felt completely unsafe on many occasions because of short staffing, not just because of my personal protection but more so because of the safety of the patients that I care for”.
Her colleague, Ms Y, found a young patient on an adolescent ward with a ligature tied around her neck. Short staffing meant that there was no one to debrief, and in fact no one even realised that it was a student who found the young patient. Ms H said:
“Most weeks of my final year as a student nurse I have cut out sleeping an average of 2 nights per week. Staying awake for 36 hours is the only way I can afford to train, study, and work to sustain a living.”
And yet her main grievance is not about the present, but the future:
“It just doesn’t feel like there is really light at the end of the tunnel. Instead, we will just enter a longer tunnel of a career completely unsupported by Government.”
The warning signs are loud and clear. The conditions described today are unfit for those who selflessly care for our most vulnerable. The devastating consequences of leaving the system broken would be felt for decades to come.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
I was a mature student aged 41 when I started my nurse training, and I was a single parent. I could not have completed my training without a bursary, and could not have done a part-time job because it was a full-time course and I had a child to care for. My younger single friends also needed their bursaries, because everyone had bills to pay. I was a nurse for 14 years and my colleagues are still nurses. None of us could have trained without the bursaries, and none of my friends would have gone on to be nurses as they are to this very day.
There are currently 41,000 nursing vacancies in NHS England. For the second year in a row, more nurses are leaving the profession than joining it, and one in three is expected to retire in the next 10 years. The NHS has spent £527 million plugging staffing gaps with expensive agency staff. I do not know how that makes any kind of economic sense. Added to that, the reality is that patient safety is compromised. Agency staff are not experts in their field. I have been in an arrest situation in which, out of seven trained, only three were regular nurses. It compromises patient safety. In addition, the number of European nurses registered in Britain dropped by 87% compared with 2016-17 figures. That means that there will be even fewer nurses.
The Government must stop putting lives at risk by understaffing and underfunding the NHS. People just are not signing up to be apprentice nurses. It sounds all right in theory, but does not work in practice. There is not the take-up. If we genuinely aim to train sufficient nurses the Government must join the Labour party in committing to reinstate nursing bursaries. Until that happens, no matter how many nursing jobs the Government fund, as nurses of my generation retire and numbers of the newly trained gradually decrease, we will simply not have the trained nurses to fill the places.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) for securing this important debate, to which I have listened with great interest. I will not summarise what everyone said, but cut to my speech, as there are a few other important things I want to say. We have heard questions to the Minister from both sides of the Chamber about the state of nursing and applications to study nursing in England. It seems passing strange to me that the Government have chosen to abolish bursaries at a time when nurses from the EU are leaving NHS England, causing even further shortages. I was particularly struck by the hair-raising stories that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) gave us about patient safety and nurse safety—I hope the Minister addresses that.
As has been mentioned, the situation in Scotland is quite different. In case the Minister is not aware, I shall give him some ideas about how we do things in Scotland, to see whether that will help. I do so in a spirit of help, to see whether we can improve things in NHS England. In Scotland, the First Minister has just announced an increase in nursing and midwifery bursaries—the bursary will go up to £10,000 in 2021. That is part of a drive to continue the increase in numbers of student nurses we have had over the past few years. The Scottish Government also have discretionary funds for those nursing and midwifery students who are most in need, and are upping the number of places for students of nursing and midwifery in the academic year 2019-20. We recognise the importance of those nurses.
On a personal note, after what I have been through over the past year, I would not be able to stand here were it not for the support of nurses throughout the entire stage of my late husband’s treatment and the end-of-life care that he received, and I appreciate the opportunity to put on record my thanks to St Andrew’s Hospice in Airdrie, of which I am a patron.
The Scottish Government’s discretionary fund will give more money to mature nursing students—that cause has been mentioned—if we use the word “mature” to apply only to those who have children. Those people need extra support and are given it. As most previous speakers have said, it is important that we attract mature students into nursing, as well as those who come straight from school. From personal experience, I think that mature students bring an extra level of care and understanding that we do not always get right away from young entrants into the profession.
Student nursing and midwifery places in Scotland will increase for the seventh consecutive year, reaching record levels with the intake rising by 7.6% to more than 4,000. Upping intake for the 2019-20 academic year is one of a number of measures to support the sustained recruitment and retention of NHS staff, but it is also important to retain our existing staff. We have heard stories about the pressures that nurses are currently under, and they must be alleviated. In addition to increased student places, almost 460 former nurses and midwives have signed up to retrain through the Return to Practice programme since 2015. The Scottish Government are funding the Open University to deliver a pre-registration programme, which currently supports around 116 nursing students. In October 2016, 10,239 students were in education—an increase from 9,936 the year before—and we will get the 2017 data next month.
I often find myself standing in this place, especially in Westminster Hall, and asking Ministers whether they have looked at the situation in Scotland, because sometimes we are more progressive. Sometimes it is easier, because Scotland has a smaller national health service, but we also value the NHS in Scotland. Earlier this decade, the First Minister announced that, in all hospitals in Scotland apart from those built under private finance initiative contracts, parking charges would be withdrawn. That has been carried out. That simple measure can help nurses, and I urge the Minister most sincerely to consider it, as well as some of the other practices that we have taken on board to increase nursing numbers in Scotland.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) on securing this important debate. The level of interest from Members shows how important this subject is. My hon. Friend spoke from great personal experience, and I thank her and everyone else who has worked in the NHS for their contribution over many years to make it an institution of which we are all rightly proud.
My hon. Friend comprehensively dismantled the Government’s arguments on the merits of removing the bursary. As she said, it is indisputable that the number of applications and the numbers of people starting courses have fallen, and that the age profile of students has changed. She was right to say that the decision to abolish the bursary was a political choice, and not one that the Labour party would have made. Along with other Members, she highlighted areas that have fewer nurses in community and district hospitals and in settings that treat those with learning disabilities or mental health problems. Given that the pipeline for delivering nurses is not working as it should, those shortages may worsen. My hon. Friend was right to say that higher education is the best way to train enough highly skilled nurses to meet the needs of patients.
Marion Fellows
I wonder how many Members are aware that the Select Committee on Education will shortly publish the results of its inquiry into nursing apprenticeships.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Lady for her public service announcement. Let me now refer to some other contributions.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) made a fair point about how the price of housing exacerbates the shortage of nurses in some areas, and all Members will be aware that earlier this year more than 1,900 nursing vacancies were advertised in the Thames Valley area, although only five were filled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) gave a thoughtful and persuasive speech that highlighted the fact that the number of applicants over 25 has fallen by 40%, and she mentioned the impact of that in specialist areas. She was right to say that the nature of the nursing degree limits the opportunities for students to earn income outside their course demands.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) made a considered contribution about her criteria for what would make a successful training course, and I will reflect on that good piece of advice.
As always, it was a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who has great experience in this area. He referred back to a debate in 2016, and was right to say that this policy has damaged mature students and social mobility. Many concerns that were raised back in 2016—including by Government Members—have been ignored, or indeed come to pass.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) gave us the benefit of the thoughts of nurses in her constituency. It is always a good idea to hear directly from those on the frontline, and she came up with some interesting practical suggestions about what could be done to make the lives of nurses easier. Along with other Members, she mentioned the impact of this policy on the number of mature students applying, and the impact that that has on particular specialisms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) set out why, due to a combination of factors, now is not the time to experiment with a flawed and unproven model. She mentioned the challenge of retention, and related some graphic and moving stories from her constituents. She was right to say that if we do not fix this issue now, we will pay the consequences for decades to come.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) spoke of her own frontline experience, and mentioned the expense and risk of over-reliance on agency staff. No doubt the challenges that we face and have discussed today will be exacerbated, which will place even more reliance on temporary and agency staff.
We have had a broad and wide-ranging debate. This is the Minister’s first outing in his role, and I welcome him to his place and congratulate him on his appointment. I was trying to work out whether he is the fourth or fifth Minister I have shadowed since I was appointed to my role just over three years ago, which shows that it is not just the NHS that has problems with retention.
The NHS faces a significant workforce challenge, and nowhere is that more pronounced than in nursing. England is missing about 42,000 nurses and, according to conservative estimates, without significant intervention that figure may rise to more than 48,000 by 2023. The situation is serious—other Members have described it as a “crisis”, which is absolutely right, but this crisis could have been avoided.
As Members have said, we are facing a perfect storm, with recent trends showing that more nurses are leaving the profession than joining it, the ongoing uncertainty over Brexit, the fact that one in three nurses is due to retire within the decade, and the catastrophic decision to scrap bursaries for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. According to the Royal College of Nursing,
“without enough nurses, care is fundamentally unsafe, frontline staff are compromised and people seeking access to health and care services are not able to receive the care that they need.”
The RCN also reports that services are sometimes so short-staffed that nursing students are inappropriately used to plug gaps in the workforce and have to look after patients before they are qualified to do so. That is an extremely worrying development.
This is a crisis of the Government’s own making. Before I come on to the current policy context of higher education funding, I will say a little about the circumstances leading to the decision to undertake the reforms back in 2015. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West said, workforce planning has not traditionally been a great strength of the NHS.
One of the first decisions of the coalition Government back in 2010 was to cut the number of nurse training places at university. In 2010-11, 20,092 places were funded, but that fell sharply to 17,741 in 2011-12 and dropped again to 17,546 in 2012-13. At that stage, David Green, vice-chancellor of the University of Worcester and a former chair of the west midlands group of universities said:
“We are heading straight for a national disaster in two to three years’ time.”
The RCN also warned that the cuts would cause
“serious issues in undersupply for years to come.”
Those warnings were not heeded by the Secretary of State at the time, and a completely predictable and preventable crisis in the nursing workforce was created. Had the coalition Government only maintained the levels set by the last Labour Government, 8,000 additional nurses would have been trained in the last Parliament alone.
In the midst of this completely manufactured crisis, the abolition of undergraduate nurse bursaries was announced. I ask the Minister to consider whether that response to the crisis was the correct move. In just two lines in the 2015 autumn statement, with no consultation and no evidence base, the Government committed themselves to a huge gamble with the future of the NHS workforce and with patient safety. The then Minister described the proposal as
“potentially one of the most exciting things that we will do in the NHS in the next five years to increase opportunity and quality, and the presence of nursing staff on wards.”—[Official Report, 4 May 2016; Vol. 609, c. 196.]
We were told at the time that our many concerns were misguided, and that the changes would lead to an additional 10,000 training places being provided. However, as we have heard, the opposite has happened. As of September 2018, almost 1,800 fewer people are due to start nursing university courses in England. The number of mature students has plummeted by some 15%, which as we have heard has had a particular impact on specialist areas. There has been a 12.9% reduction in the number of mental health nurses since 2010.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) said, there has been a shocking 40% reduction in learning disability nurses. Learning disability nursing celebrates its 100th anniversary in 2019. It will be an astonishing failure of the Government’s if they allow it to disappear altogether. That reduction comes at a time when the needs of people with learning disabilities have never been more paramount, with premature mortality resulting from complex health conditions and people being detained in assessment and treatment units for far longer than necessary.
We warned at the time that this policy would have precisely the effect that is has. After meeting representatives from the profession and looking at the evidence, the Government carried on. On the other hand, they did not formally consult the Royal Colleges before announcing their plans. I know that there has been some dialogue since then, and I will be grateful if the Minister will set out his recent discussions with the sector about the impact of the bursary cut and what steps the Government are taking to deal specifically with the crisis in learning disability and mental health nursing, which have been particularly hard-hit by the changes.
As various Members have said, the new Secretary of State recognised the crisis by saying
“simply put: we need more”
nurses, and that:
“That is something we will specifically address in the long-term plan for the NHS”.
That plan is due to be published any time now, and we will examine it very closely. However, if the Secretary of State is serious about tackling the workforce crisis and increasing the nursing workforce, he needs to make a key element of the strategy the reintroduction of NHS bursaries. It remains our policy to do so, and there has not been a single jot of evidence since they were removed to dissuade us from our initial view that their abolition was short-sighted, damaging and, ultimately, self-defeating. In a written answer on 19 April this year, the former Minister indicated that the Department would publish an update on the effect of the plans later this year. Will the Minister advise us of where that is up to?
Although I have referred to a lot of large numbers to highlight the overall impact of the policy, it is important to hear, as we have from some Members, about the impact on individuals. I do not know if the Minister had the opportunity to attend the RCN drop-in earlier today. If he did not, I convey to him how well the students I spoke to conveyed how difficult it is to work what they and I consider to be unsafe hours to make ends meet; how the inclusion of the student loan in income for benefits calculations leaves families worse off; and how the students notice that, each time they return to the lecture theatre, there are fewer and fewer of them. What assessment has the Department made of the attrition rate of university courses since the abolition of the bursary?
In conclusion, the uncertainty created by Brexit means that the reliance on recruitment from the EU that we have seen in recent years is no longer an option to shore up nursing numbers. Our NHS staff cannot keep giving more at the same time as we give them less. The Government need to fund our future and invest in nursing higher education. They simply cannot afford not to.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, as I make my first speech in what I regard as one of the most important ministerial roles in the Government. I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) for securing the debate. It has been a passionate debate that has reflected the importance that so many people—including, clearly, everybody in this Chamber—place on NHS professionals. It has recognised that high-quality education and training for nurses is fundamental to ensuring that the highest level of nursing care is given to patients. I obviously recognise that the hon. Lady, having served in the NHS for more than 40 years, has first-hand knowledge of the difference that nurses can make to individuals and families.
The hon. Lady raised several points in her speech, many of which I will address. However, she quite rightly opened by saying that we need and must have staffing that is safe for effective care. No one in the House would move from that. She asked several questions, including on bursaries, mature students and the number of people in training, which I will come to, but also made several points about the long-term plan, which it is important to talk about at the beginning.
The long-term plan will contain a chapter on NHS professionals and workforce planning, which I recognise will be the most important chapter. The hon. Lady will know that Health Education England undertook a consultation on the strategy for the workforce, which was published in draft last year. HEE also undertook a full consultation on the priorities for the health and care workforce, which concluded in the summer. The “Talk Health and Care” platform has been introduced, which the Government particularly expect to inform the work that NHS England is leading on the long-term plan.
It is also particularly important—it is potentially by accident—that the debate takes place on the day that the RCN produced a document, to which the Secretary of State and I have committed to respond. The shadow Minister is right: I deliberately took the time before the debate to meet a number of the students. I heard at first hand a number of their concerns, and I said to them—the hon. Gentleman will perhaps understand this, given his remarks about retention at the start of his speech—how important I think retention is, not only of nurses but of Ministers as well.
Vicky Ford
I am delighted that the Minister met the RCN and nursing students this morning. Will he confirm that hearing the voices of students themselves is absolutely vital in making decisions on the future?
Stephen Hammond
Of course it is important. As my hon. Friend will know, as Members, and particularly as Ministers, we get all sorts of briefings, which are very helpful and contain lots of numbers, but not real-life experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about the experience of nurses at his hospital. He made the point quite powerfully that there are several common issues that we need to address, but several other issues that are not necessarily common to every experience. It is right that we consider the issues they raise.
Janet Daby
One of my constituents who is a student nurse has been to see me. She is struggling with her student nursing loans. She has two children, and she was literally in tears while telling me her stories about how difficult it is for her—the Student Loans Company is demanding the money back. She is working and has children, and cannot afford to pay back those loans. Does the Minister think that situation is tenable?
Stephen Hammond
I will talk about that issue in more depth later, but if the hon. Lady wishes to write to me, I will look at her constituent’s case. I will point out that the learning support fund already offers a number of opportunities, including child dependants allowance, travel costs and an exceptional hardship allowance. I hope her constituent knows about and is taking advantage of those opportunities.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) asked whether the Government will publish an update on the impact of the reforms. That is currently being worked on with education and health organisations and stakeholders. We will look at the most appropriate way of making sure that, following receipt of the proposals by the RCN, and in the context of the long-term plan and the chapter on workforce planning, the higher education funding review takes place and feeds into that update. We will set that position out in due course—I dare say that the hon. Gentleman and I will debate it in due course as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) described what an excellent training scheme should look like, which was very helpful and powerful. My hon. Friend’s experience as a clinician is invaluable, and hopefully my speech will address a number of the points that she raised. I listened carefully to the asks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). Some are in my power and some are not, but she made a point about mature students, and the Government recognise that the number of mature student applications has dropped across the wider higher education sector as well as in nursing. We are working with organisations in the sector to see how we can attract more mature students and whether specific funding can be targeted more effectively towards those students via the learning support fund.
It does not really need saying that, at the national level, the Government understand how important nurses are. We are committed to making sure that the nursing workforce are properly supported and funded. In her contribution, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West made the point that funding to the NHS is increasing: by 2023-24, it will receive £20.5 billion a year more than it currently does, and the Government expect the long-term plan to set out a strategy for the NHS to ensure a sustainable supply of nurses, rolling that supply across the whole range of pathways. We expect NHS England to clearly set out its commitment to the nursing workforce in the long-term plan, and ensure that there is a clear way for that plan to be implemented. A number of significant interventions are already in place to boost the supply of nurses, including training more nurses, offering new routes and enhancing reward packages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham pointed out, there are over 11,900 more nurses on our wards than there were in May 2010.
However, the Government, and I as the new Minister for Health, should never be complacent, so I will set out a few other things that I regard as priorities. Our priority is to get more nurses on to our wards. As has been referred to, the education funding reforms, which moved student nurse funding into the student loans system, were introduced to unlock the cap that constrained the number of pre-registration nursing training places. Those reforms allow more students to gain access to nurse degree training courses. We have announced funding for 5,000 more clinical training places to make sure that those placements can be put in place. We have also increased midwifery training places by more than 3,000 over the next four years, and in 2017, there were 22,575 acceptances—the second-largest number since nursing became a degree-only profession.
It is also important to note that the loans system gives more cash when compared with the bursary system—effectively, up to 25% more. A mature student with two children will receive up to an extra £7,500 a year. I recognise that a number of other things need to be, and should be, put in place and known about more widely. The Government have also targeted support for healthcare students on courses through the learning support fund, which provides additional non-repayable grants. Up to £1,000 is available for eligible students in childcare allowances and hardship funding provisions. None of that, of course, was available under the bursary scheme. More nurses are in training, and the Government are working with Health Education England and the university sector to ensure that students continue to apply for nursing courses up to the end of clearing this year. I am pleased to say that, this year, we have seen a 6% increase in the number of 18-year-olds applying for courses and being accepted.
As an hon. Friend pointed out, there continues to be strong demand, specifically for younger people. I have made the point that we need to address the issues faced by more mature students who wish to enter, or re-enter, the profession. That should be a key priority in the long-term plan. The Government, and I as the new Minister, recognise that we need to do much more to continue to encourage people to apply for nursing courses, particularly more mature students. Therefore, my officials are actively engaging with the Royal College of Nursing, the Council of Deans of Health, and Universities UK—all of those organisations have a role to play. The Government will be consulting on the detailed proposals on future funding for higher education that the RCN has put forward today. I said this earlier, but I want to recommit and make it clear that we regard those as serious proposals, and will be writing to the RCN to engage on those proposals. We will start that work straightaway.
Paul Blomfield
I appreciate that the Minister is new to his post, and that it may be more appropriate for him to write to me in response to this point. I wonder whether he will address the attrition rates question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). There is a relationship between the falling number of applications, the funding regime, and the higher attrition rates. Does the Minister have numbers on that, and what consideration are the Government giving to it?
Stephen Hammond
Inspiration has just reached me. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Health Education England recently published a report on attrition rates on nursing courses—I made the point earlier that the rate of attrition among all people applying for university places has gone down. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman. The report published by Health Education England describes how attrition rates on those courses have fallen considerably over the past few years, but I will write to him to be absolutely clear. He may then choose to make that letter available.
Dr Caroline Johnson
“The nursing workforce” report, which was published by the Select Committee on Health in January, identified that 30% of students due to complete in 2015-16 or 2016-17 did not complete within that period. Significant variability between different training institutions was also identified. Will the Minister commit to looking at why some institutions have such high attrition rates compared with others?
Stephen Hammond
That is an extremely important point. There is not necessarily a universal reason why particular institutions have worse attrition rates than others, and that may well be key to retaining people who wish to stay in the profession.
In my last minute, I will finish on this point: NHS England, NHS Improvement and Health Education England are all working with trusts on a range of recruitment, retention and return-to-practice programmes. Some of those have met with some success: NHS Improvement’s retention programme works directly with trusts to support improvements in retention. However, I want to make clear that, as the newest member of the Government and of the Department, I regard the retention of our NHS professionals as a priority, and I am looking forward to making a contribution not only to things like the “Talk Health and Care” platform, through which there has already been positive engagement, but on this matter more generally. Retention is key, and we want to make sure nurses understand that we recognise how important they are. The long-term plan will set out a strategy to ensure a more sustainable future supply of nurses. They work incredibly hard, and it is absolutely right that this Government will commit to ensure that funding is dedicated to the supply—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Plastics: Agriculture
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the use of plastics in agriculture.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
My constituents in North Cornwall are incredibly concerned about the environment, for a number of reasons. Perhaps most importantly, it is because we are a coastal constituency with a great deal of communities reliant on the sea, like the Minister’s constituency of Suffolk Coastal. It might also be because of the beautiful inland landscape of our countryside. Arguably the biggest threat to the environment, other than the ice caps melting, is the plastic in our seas and environments.
The invention of modern plastics transformed the world. It sped up processing and changed entirely how we store everything from food to medicine and how we wrap bulk items. However, with all the good that plastic has done in ease of use, it now poses an imminent threat. We all know that plastic is not biodegradable, and that is now coming at a price to our environment. The most noticeable damage being done to us in North Cornwall is undoubtedly plastic in the ocean. Around two months ago, I asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a question about marine conservation in which I congratulated Lewis Pugh on his mammoth swim from Land’s End to Dover. He did that to raise awareness of the tide of plastic we now find pouring into our oceans.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and raising this issue. Does he agree that quite a lot of the issues are caused by commercial waste collectors that do not make plastic recycling easy, particularly for businesses?
Scott Mann
The hon. Lady makes an exceptionally good point. I will come on to talk about the environmental impact of industrial plastics later on. There needs to be a wider debate about not only residential waste but commercial waste.
Just last month, The Guardian reported that microplastic fragments are now finding their way into human stool samples. It is incredibly worrying that plastic is now entering the human food chain. Polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate were the plastics most commonly found. Although there is still little data on the long-term implications of those microplastics for the human body, it is causing serious concern.
Our food comes from our agricultural industry, which we rely heavily on. It relies on the use of plastics, and it is there that I believe we can make some progress. Plastics and the environment is a key issue in my constituency and for future generations. I am sure many Members have similar talks when they go into their local primary and secondary schools, but when I visit schools in my constituency, the first question they ask me, after my favourite football team—it is Plymouth Argyle, by the way—is always an environmental one. Often it is about plastics.
I certainly welcome the amazing progress that the Government have already made. We have made a commitment to leave the environment in a better place than we found it. We have seen progress in legislation to tackle the scourge of plastics in our environment. We implemented the ban on the manufacture of products containing microbeads, and the coalition introduced the 5p carrier bag charge. At the time, I was slightly sceptical about that, but it has definitely changed behaviour, taking 9 billion bags out of circulation. There are the recent proposals for a bottle deposit scheme, which I welcome, and a ban on the sale of plastic straws, stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds. Most recently, the Chancellor has announced consultation on a world-leading tax on plastic packaging that does not include at least 30% recycled content.
Those policies are part of a cultural change in how the public view single-use plastics, and around the country we are seeing great examples of how that is coming about through grassroots organisations. Penzance recently became the first town in the country to go plastic-free, and was declared as such by Surfers Against Sewage. That was achieved by Penzance residents coming together and thinking of creative new ways of replacing plastics. For example, they have started to use food boxes made of starch. I commend the people of Penzance for their great achievement.
I welcome the nation’s action on the issue of plastics in the environment, but I want to focus specifically on plastics in the agricultural sector. In rural communities such as North Cornwall, plastics are used heavily on farms. In fact, PlasticsEurope, an association of plastic manufacturers, says on its website:
“A wide range of plastics are used in agriculture”.
Those include polyolefin and polyethylene, which tend to be used in mulch to protect saplings and conserve water. Polypropylene is used to make woven sacks for storage. Ethylene-vinyl acetate is used for sealing packaging. Polyvinyl chloride is used for plastic pipes for irrigation. Those are just a few examples of the plastics used in the agricultural space.
Those plastics provide innovative but not always sustainable ways of managing crops. Plastic irrigation pipes prevent the wasting of water and nutrients. Rainwater can be retained more effectively in plastic reservoirs. The use of pesticides can be greatly reduced by keeping crops in a closed space such as a greenhouse or by mulching under plastic film. Moreover, pesticide emissions into the atmosphere are reduced by having a fixed plastic cover in place.
At the end of their life cycle, agricultural plastics such as greenhouse covers can be recycled. Once retrieved from the fields, other plastics have to be washed to eliminate sand, herbicides and pesticides before they are ground up and extruded into pellets. That in itself is quite environmentally intensive, but the material can then be used again in the manufacturing of such things as outdoor furniture. When recycling is not viable, energy can be obtained from agricultural plastic waste through co-combustion. The recent call for evidence by Her Majesty’s Treasury on single-use plastics, “Tackling the plastic problem”, was intended to explore how changes to the tax system or charges could be introduced to reduce the amount of single-use plastics.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that dealing with plastics through incineration is 12 times less fuel-efficient than burning the original stock fuel?
Scott Mann
I have learned something today. I was not aware of that. The whole principle is that reusing plastics rather than burning them is a much better way of dealing with the scourge we have in the environment.
I know the Government are keen to explore new and innovative measures in this area. The National Farmers Union recently said that it recognises the potential for new production opportunities in the industry and would like to see some Government action. It said:
“However, it is important that food safety and quality are not compromised”.
It wants
“to encourage the phase-out of single-use plastics. Agriculture is responsible for only a small proportion of plastic packaging waste.”
We clearly need to find a way to make agriculture more environmentally friendly without putting a heavy burden on our fantastic farmers. In some cases, farmers have taken the initiative. For example, plastic mulches took over from materials such as straw leaves and wood chips as they are more effective to install in large-scale indoor animal enclosures, but there are cases of financially viable modern-day farms that have turned their back on single-use plastics and have gone organic to cover crops. I was recently made aware by the Horticultural Trades Association that its new plant pots are recyclable and do not contain any carbon pigment. The Government need to get behind a move to organic materials, or at least material that can be recycled. A further problem to which we need a solution is that some farms are remote and struggle to get a private contractor to come in and collect waste. That sometimes leads to farmers burning waste, which has a huge impact on the environment and is not the right way forward.
I originally came up with the concept for today’s debate after visiting a constituent called Phil who runs Kernow Farm Plastics in Cornwall. His business is part of the national farmers recycling service, which operates across the whole of the south-west. Kernow Farm Plastics offers a service to farmers to collect and recycle their agricultural plastics. Phil took me round for half a day to show me his business and to educate me—it really was a bit of an education—on the different kinds of plastics in agriculture and their environmental impact.
One thing that is not made of biodegradable material, and which I am particularly concerned about, is net wrap, which is used to tie large bales of hay. It is not the plastic coating that goes around the outside—the black stuff. Net wrap holds the bale in place, and is made up of a very thin strand of non-recyclable plastic. It is terrible for wildlife and the marine environment, and ultimately could find its way into watercourses and then into the sea. That is my main focus in the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand to let him know about an innovative scheme. My local council, Ards and North Down Borough Council, yesterday became the first in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to install a marine sea bin, which has the capacity to sieve 2 million litres of sea water annually and trap plastics in its mesh. The sea bins cost about £3,500 each, and use a low-energy motor that can be run for about £1 a day. Each bin can capture 3 tonnes of litter a year, and 70% of each unit is made of recyclable plastic. Does he agree that such initiatives can and must be recognised and encouraged? Ards and North Down Borough Council, as the first council in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to install a sea bin, is leading the way.
Scott Mann
I absolutely agree. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great champion of his community, including his fishing community. Like me, he understands that our marine environment is vital. I hope that we see more of those schemes around the country.
We need to find biodegradable and organic alternatives to net wrap. The original alternative was binder twine. We used to see lots of twine used for tying bales, but that seems to be less prevalent now. Twine has traditionally been more durable than plastic, but is prone to rotting away. It is not nearly as suited to the job as plastic. In many industries, plastic has been seen as a much more effective alternative, but not necessarily for the environment.
Net wrap is a key example of where we need an alternative that is easy and safe to recycle. It is unacceptable for us to continue to use this stuff on an industrial scale when we could use something that is recyclable. My ask of the Minister and the Department is that they set up a research and development fund to try to find a way of ensuring that all plastic farming materials can be recycled, and to encourage viable alternative organic production methods wherever possible so that we do not end up with plastics in our environment, among our wildlife and in our oceans.
We need to make the debate on plastics as wide as possible so that we can get the best results, and I know that the Minister gets that. It has been a pleasure to take part in today’s debate, and I am really looking forward to listening to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing the debate. I recognise the extensive introduction he gave to the marine impact of a lot of plastic getting into rivers and oceans. I fully share those concerns, and we are working exceptionally hard in a number of ways to tackle that important issue. However, I will mainly address his questions about the use of plastic in agriculture.
The Government share concerns about plastic waste polluting our environment from all sources, including agriculture. Our priority is to prevent plastic from entering the environment in the first place. My hon. Friend will be aware that the overarching ambition is to achieve zero avoidable plastic waste over the lifetime of the 25-year environment plan, but ideally sooner.
As a material, plastics are incredibly useful and versatile, as my hon. Friend mentioned. They are flexible and durable and have a multitude of uses in the agricultural sector. Plastic is used on farms for a variety of purposes, including wrapping hay and silage bales, transporting feed and fertiliser, and insulating soil and horticultural crops. Wrapping animal feed such as silage, hay and straw in plastic protects it from the weather and saves time while baling. It is a handy way to store valuable feed that is used to feed stock through the winter.
Removing the wrap from hay bales can be a burden for farmers. Failure to do so, and to dispose of it properly, means that animals can sometimes eat the plastic wrapping and injure themselves when it enters their rumen. We urge farmers and agricultural workers to take responsibility for their waste, and to follow guidance to ensure that they capture plastic waste and deal with it properly. A coalition of groups has published information to help farmers and land managers to do the right thing with agricultural waste as part of the “right waste, right place” campaign. That campaign was sponsored by the Environment Agency and supported by the National Farmers Union among others.
Plastic wrap used for hay bales can be recycled, and the infrastructure exists within the country to manage that. However, contamination levels, the relatively high costs of collection and other costs associated with cleaning plastic waste before it can be recycled mean that demand for farm plastic waste is very low. I recognise and welcome the valuable work of operators in the farming sector who are taking proactive steps to recycle farm plastic waste. For example, yesterday Grassroots Recycling organised a meeting that brought together the NFU, the Environment Agency and 10 farm waste collectors, including Kernow Farm Plastics Ltd, to which my hon. Friend referred, and Agri Cycle Ltd, to consider the challenges for recycling farm plastics.
As my hon. Friend laid out, it is important that such a service is available to the farming community right around the country in order to help farmers deal with some of their regulatory requirements. He will be aware that, if a farmer chooses to sell a bale of hay, they need to participate in the packaging recovery note system, although if it just gets reused on their own land they do not need to because it is just a transfer of product.
It is fair to say that there were concerns that the end markets are challenging at this time, particularly as recycling processes tend to take plastic waste from other sources, given the issues that I outlined. I must admit that today is the first time that I have heard somebody talk specifically about the problem of net wrap. After my hon. Friend’s eloquent explanation of the challenges in how it is used, I fully understand his concerns about how net wrap in particular could easily become part of the litter that ends up going into watercourses, having the impact to which he referred.
My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of a research and development fund to look at alternatives. There is an opportunity for people to apply for funding from our plastics innovation fund, which is led by Innovate UK under the steering of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. He will be aware that there are many producers, so this is a good challenge.
As we announced in the Budget, we are introducing what is effectively a new tax for plastic products that are not at least 30% recycled. There may be a possibility to apply such measures to wider plastic wrap as well as the net wrap. However, I am conscious of what my hon. Friend said about alternatives. I strongly agree that, just as we are looking at alternative uses for plastics industrially as well as recreationally, there may well be more we can do once the opportunity for innovation is explored.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister mentions money for research into plastic wrapping, but there is also a problem with plastic mulching. We do not know what effect plastic mulch may have when it gets into watercourses, rivers and seas, but it is a potential source of microplastics and it may also go straight into the soil. It could be a widespread problem, but there is a lack of research into plastic mulching and a lack of knowledge about its effects.
Dr Coffey
I had never heard the phrase “plastic mulching” before either, but I am conscious of what the hon. Gentleman suggests. Elements of plastic can end up in the natural environment in different and unintended ways. Some broader research has been done into the impact of plastics, but I recognise that there is more to do. I think Public Health England has been considering the matter.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister says about encouraging biodegradable fibres and bioplastics, but until those materials are available more widely, we will need a domestic solution to recycling. China is now refusing to take plastic waste, and other Asian countries may follow suit. Recycling plastic has recently become more complicated and expensive than ever before, so I hope that she will say what the Government are doing to encourage domestic recycling solutions.
Dr Coffey
The reality is that until now, China, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and other countries have largely been happy to accept our plastic because they have seen it as a raw material that they can use to generate more products. Plastic recycling is technically possible and exists in this country already—it is just that it is not as economical. People have to pay to recycle various sources of plastic rather than getting a benefit from them, although that is changing. We recognise that China has reduced the amount of contamination that it is prepared to accept in plastic—it does not ignore all plastic, but effectively it has closed the market and made it less worth while. I am sure my hon. Friend is eagerly awaiting our strategy on resources and waste, which will appear in due course. Perhaps more can be revealed at that time.
I mentioned the measures in the 25-year environment plan we published in January, as well as the Government’s commitment to taking action against the problem of single-use plastics waste as part of our wider strategy. We have given £20 million to the plastics innovation fund, which is co-ordinated by Innovate UK and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and which aims to reduce the environmental costs of plastic and litter. I am pleased to say that, in the Budget, we announced not only a tax on plastic products that are not at least 30% recycled, but a further £20 million of funding: £10 million extra for R&D and £10 million to pioneer innovative approaches to boosting recycling and reducing litter. The fund will be made available during the 2019-20 financial year. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall that innovation is vital in supporting developments to tackle plastic waste, so we will continue to explore commercially viable options.
Beyond the farm, we have worked with retailers and with the Waste and Resources Action Programme to explore the potential for introducing plastic-free initiatives. At the end of the month, WRAP will publish a technical report on the evidence for providing fresh produce. Its purpose is to inform a dialogue on providing uncut fresh fruit and vegetables loose, and it will contain advice on how to eliminate unnecessary plastic packaging without unintentionally increasing food waste. I am sure that the famous cucumber scenario will be mentioned many times in the discussions about whether plastic is a benefit or a horror. The opposite environmental aspect that we need to consider is food waste, especially in regard to carbon. The technical report will be available for consideration and discussion by signatories to the 2025 Courtauld commitment and the UK plastics pact.
The Government want to create a vibrant market for recycled materials in the UK, including plastic. We want to increase the quantity and quality of materials collected by local authorities in England and accelerate greater consistency. My hon. Friend referred to biodegradable materials, which may be seen as a solution that would reduce the impact of plastic waste. However, if disposed of incorrectly, they can be more environmentally damaging than non-biodegradable materials. We are concerned that, in the absence of standards, claims about the biodegradability of plastic-based products cannot be verified, which has the potential to lead to confusion in the marketplace, increased levels of consumption and environmental harm at the point of disposal.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on plastic. Some may see it as a niche issue, but he is fully aware of its importance and I congratulate him on all his work and campaigning. The issue needs to be tackled at the source in every possible way, and we need constantly to challenge ourselves, our agricultural industry and other similar industries to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Leaving the EU: Legal Services
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of legal services after the UK leaves the EU.
I am pleased to have secured this timely Brexit debate on the provision of legal services. This is a key moment for our country’s wellbeing and direction, and the implication for the provision of legal services is significant. I introduce myself as a non-practising solicitor and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal and constitutional affairs, which produced a report in October that noted serious issues that merit further debate. I take this opportunity to thank the APPG’s secretariat from the Law Society for its assistance with the report.
Before I launch into Brexit issues, let me explain why the legal services sector is so important to our economy. The legal services sector is a great UK success story. The UK has the second largest legal services market in the world and the largest legal services sector in the EU. In 2017, it contributed more than £26 billion to the economy—equivalent to 1.5% of GDP—and was responsible for net trade of some £4 billion. It employs and trains over 380,000 people.
The jurisdiction of England and Wales is recognised as a global centre for legal services, particularly for international, commercial and corporate transactions, and dispute resolution and arbitration. In 2015, more than 22,000 commercial and civil disputes were resolved through arbitration, mediation and adjudication in the UK. In the commercial court, which is housed in its new, modern building, nearly 1,100 claims were issued, of which two thirds involved at least one party whose address was outside England and Wales.
Our legal services sector is a great international success story, but we have no natural right to retain that business. Indeed, over the past 10 years several jurisdictions have sought to compete with England and Wales. We keep the work because of the excellence of our professional lawyers and judges and because of foreign parties’ trust in our rule of law and our reputation for judicial efficiency and fairness.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. Surely one of the biggest threats to the UK comes from Singapore, which is developing a good range of courts to tackle commercial issues. I have raised the subject on several occasions, but there does not appear to be a united Government front to see off the threat from Singapore.
Mr Djanogly
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Other jurisdictions are also mounting challenges. We must avoid doing anything that might impair the reputation of the sector.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks of the reputation of the sector. It is also about hard cash. At the end of the day, the legal services sector makes a contribution of about £25.7 billion per annum to the economy. It is really significant for our economic wellbeing.
Mr Djanogly
My hon. Friend makes another very important point.
English law is the most widely used legal system in the world—27% of the world’s 320 legal jurisdictions use it. There are more than 200 foreign law firms with offices in the UK, from more than 40 jurisdictions. The UK legal services sector is forecast to produce turnover of £30.82 billion and net exports of £4.25 billion by 2025.
Brexit will be the largest ever change to the UK’s legal framework and it represents both opportunities and risks for the legal sector. The impact of Brexit on lawyers, law firms and legal practices will be significant. Negotiations around the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and the transition period have been agreed, but questions remain, especially about the future relationship of the UK and the EU.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Legal services amount to the equivalent of 1.5% of GDP. Both the Bar Council and the Law Society have issued warnings that any form of Brexit will have a significant impact on the sector. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be better for the legal services sector if we remained in a single market?
Mr Djanogly
Yes, and the hon. Lady is going to hear me explain how the post-Brexit situation that I want to see is as close to that as possible.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on highlighting in this place the importance of the legal services sector to our economy and our justice system. Will he indicate what he believes the direction of travel for the legal services sector is in the proposed deal? We would all be interested in his initial reaction.
Mr Djanogly
That is exactly what I shall be doing.
The legal sector has broadly welcomed the Government’s negotiating stance so far. However, concerns remain that withdrawal from the EU and our future relationship will not deliver in a number of key areas for legal services. There are concerns over whether the Government’s current approach will deliver sustainable market access for legal services and flexibility for services. Unlike financial services, there is no in-depth common rulebook or Europe-wide regulator in legal services. Instead, legal services remain regulated autonomously by each EU member state, while functioning on the principle that an EU law firm should be treated as equal to domestic lawyers and firms. There is therefore no great benefit for the legal sector in maintaining regulatory flexibility when pursuing trade agreements with third countries.
I would point out, from my time on the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, that that is the view of most service industries. They have every intention of following EU rules whether they are mandated to or not, because that is what their business dictates. Certainly, from a legal services perspective, the preservation of the present system should be prioritised, so that lawyers from EU member states, European economic area states and Switzerland can practise freely across the continent.
The APPG inquiry focused on mutual market access and on how legal services will be able to operate following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. We accepted written evidence and held sessions in Parliament to hear oral evidence from interested parties, including law firms and chambers, individual practitioners and other stakeholders. We sought evidence on the impact of Brexit on legal practices, the workforce, business structures and client bases. We explored how lawyers currently practise across borders, looking at everything from rules on immigration and practice rights to the recognition of professional qualifications, and how that is anticipated to be affected by Brexit. We sought to understand where contingency planning was taking place and what steps firms were already taking to mitigate any effect of Brexit on the sector. We sought to understand the key concerns of the sector about the effect of Brexit, and we published the final report in October—if anyone wants a copy, I have some. It explored the concerns and comments raised in the oral and written evidence.
We made 10 recommendations. First, the Government should ensure that mutual market access is retained, as currently envisaged, in any transitional arrangements. Secondly, we urge the Government to seek to retain mutual market access as far as possible in any future relationship with the European Union. Thirdly, the Government should ensure that UK lawyers are able to continue to serve their clients post-Brexit on what is called a fly-in, fly-out basis. Fourthly, the Government should ensure that any future relationship with the EU includes a mechanism for UK lawyers to practise EU law via the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and law firm structures. Fifthly, the Government should seek to secure the rights of audience in EU courts, such as the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Sixthly, it is vital that, following Brexit, the Government provides for the ability of the legal sector to easily recruit skilled individuals from outside the UK. Seventhly, the Government should ensure that our immigration system does not block lawyers from continuing to provide services in the EU. Eighthly, the Government and the EU should agree on the draft withdrawal agreement as soon as possible to ensure a transition period that provides legal certainty—that one, hopefully, gets a tick. Ninthly, any transitional agreement should replicate the current legal framework as far as possible to ensure legal certainty and prevent businesses and individuals from having to adapt to changes in their rights and obligations twice—once during a transitional phase and once upon implementation of a new UK-EU agreement. Tenthly, a no-deal scenario should be avoided at all costs.
Let me address a few of those points, taking first the ability to practise, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and rights of audience. Of key concern to the legal sector was the ability to practise in Europe. The current framework, which allows for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, rights of audience and the ability to practise and establish firms in EU member states, has hugely benefited the UK legal services sector, providing a large net contribution to the UK economy, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). As far as possible, mutual market access should be retained.
Ellie Reeves
The withdrawal agreement does of course refer to mutual recognition, but only for the transition period. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that creates further uncertainty for the legal profession, which, as has been pointed out, already contributes so much to our economy?
Mr Djanogly
I will be making the case that the hon. Lady has just put.
On labour mobility, the legal services sector has profited from the ability to attract talent from across the globe and the ability to work in the European Union. Frankly, many people going into the offices of a City law firm would be staggered by the number of nationalities and the depth of EU and world legal experience that we have in the UK. For instance, an American client would quite commonly run its European company acquisition strategy from London—because we speak English, yes, but also because they trust our jurisdiction and courts, and because we have European expertise here in London. We do not want to lose that. It is very important that a labour mobility framework that guarantees those abilities post-Brexit is put in place.
The legal services sector requires legal certainty throughout the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. Law firms and their clients are already, sadly, beginning to implement contingency plans and move business elsewhere. We now have a draft of a detailed transition agreement, and the sector believes, as I do, that that agreement must be confirmed as soon as possible to ensure the sector has the legal certainty that it requires.
Robert Neill
Does my hon. Friend agree that having a swift and clear transition agreement is important not just, as he rightly says, to give law firms the certainty they need to continue their operations, but to ensure for their clients contractual continuity and, above all, the enforceability of contracts and judgments in commercial matters and a whole range of other matters?
Mr Djanogly
As ever, my hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Avoiding a no-deal scenario and securing the right future relationship with the European Union is of the utmost importance. The APPG supports the view of the legal services sector that a no-deal scenario would be devastating to the sector and should be avoided at all costs. Of course, there have been significant recent developments. Last week, on 14 November, the Cabinet collectively agreed to the draft withdrawal agreement and the political statement on the future relationship. Following a special European Council meeting on 25 November, the Government intend to lay a final version of the agreement before Parliament for debate.
It needs to be recognised that the draft withdrawal agreement contains a number of positive elements for the legal services sector, including provisions on mutual recognition of professional qualifications and on lawyers continuing to obtain qualifications throughout the transition period, and clarity on continued recognition and enforcement of judgments and orders throughout that period. Lawyers will continue to have the right to represent a party in proceedings before the CJEU in all stages of proceedings where a case can be brought by or against the UK. The automatic transfer of an EU intellectual property right into an equivalent UK right before the end of the transition period is very welcome.
The non-legally binding declaration, however, is a work in progress. To be frank, it is worryingly brief and it is vague on services, especially legal services. The relevant part of the political declaration explains that the goal is to secure
“Ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment, delivering a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ WTO commitments”.
It says that the Government will put in place
“Appropriate arrangements on professional qualifications.”
I have to say that this is pretty sketchy stuff, and so we continue to have concerns about the lack of detail contained within the political declaration between the UK and the EU.
First, it is pretty unambitious for the UK-EU agreement to say only that it will go “well beyond” the parties’ World Trade Organisation commitments, and it is likely to lead to significantly less market access for services. Secondly, like with the Government’s White Paper, there are concerns about the continued focus on regulatory flexibility, as I mentioned before. The preservation of the present system, whereby lawyers from EU member states, EEA states and Switzerland can practise freely across the continent, should be prioritised instead. Thirdly, it is good to see a reference to professional qualifications, but that only goes some way towards giving lawyers the ability to practise in the EU, and generally it is not their preferred route.
Fourthly, it is disappointing not to see a reference either to civil or commercial co-operation, unlike in the Government’s White Paper. The UK and the EU currently enjoy the gold standard in civil and judicial co-operation, which should continue. Fifthly, without an agreement on judicial co-operation, judgments made in UK courts might be unenforceable in EU countries in the cross-border settlement of trade disputes, which might result, for instance, in debts owed by EU entities to UK businesses not being recovered. It follows that uncertainty about whether judgments from UK courts would be enforced could make the UK less appealing as a jurisdiction of choice for contracts and dispute resolution, which would lead to the growth of competing jurisdictions.
John Howell
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. I am not sure that I heard him mention the family courts in his list of things that we need to establish good relationships over. The family courts are very important, because sadly the amount of work that they undertake—on both sides of the channel—is growing. There is enormous mutual responsibility for them.
Mr Djanogly
I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. The Brussels II regulation is a single legal instrument that helps families resolve disputes about divorce and the custody of children where they involve parties in more than one EU state. Under the regulation, EU courts automatically recognise judgments on matrimonial and parental responsibility that are delivered in other states. That will no longer apply to the UK when we have left the EU. Similarly, the maintenance regulation, which helps to ensure the payment of maintenance in cross-border situations, will no longer apply.
In a no-deal scenario, the UK and EU27’s trading relationships in legal services would be governed by the general agreement on trade in services, or GATS, which falls far short of replicating the current EU framework. UK lawyers would be subject to myriad rules and regulations in each of the 31 European Free Trade Association states rather than to a single legal framework. UK judgments are automatically recognised and enforced across the EU27, but they will not be in a no-deal scenario, unless the UK unilaterally signs The Hague convention.
At the moment, clients can receive UK law advice from UK lawyers however and wherever they want in the EU; in a no-deal scenario, clients in some jurisdictions might be limited in how they can receive UK legal advice from UK lawyers. Currently UK lawyers have the automatic right to set up practices in an EU host state with minimal bureaucracy; in a no-deal scenario, UK lawyers’ ability to set up practices in an EU27 jurisdiction will depend on local laws and regulations. If establishment is possible, permitted activities still might be limited.
Currently UK lawyers have the right to advise clients who are based in the EU27 on EU law, because their legal professional qualifications are automatically recognised. In a no-deal scenario, clients based in EU27 jurisdictions might no longer be able to receive EU law advice from UK lawyers, as UK legal professional qualifications might not be recognised. Now, law firms can set up in one EU member state and export their services across the EU by establishing branches of the same structure in other member states. In a no-deal scenario, legal entities would lose the automatic right to use their preferred business structures in certain EU27 countries, and the UK corporate form of limited liability partnerships might no longer be accepted in some jurisdictions. As can be seen, we must avoid a no-deal scenario.
Growing concern that the UK could exit the EU without a deal has led the Law Society to publish a series of papers that give solicitors guidance on how to take steps to mitigate some of the risks. Law cuts across every area of life, and often UK and EU lawyers work across borders and enforce and litigate on family, data or business disputes. The first tranche of Law Society papers gives advice on some of the potential rule changes where a deal between a business here and in the EU goes wrong, what happens in family law if a couple splits up, and how we should approach data sharing should we quit the EU without an agreement. There is another paper on providing legal services in the EU, and I understand that further papers are in production. Perhaps the Minister could take this opportunity to explain how her Department is preparing itself and the legal services sector for a no-deal scenario.
It is fair to say that services, including legal services, have not been given the same attention in the Brexit process as manufactured goods have. The sector wants a bespoke agreement that comprehensively covers legal services and is based on mutual market access, mutual recognition of regulatory frameworks, regulatory co-operation and continued mutual access to talent. I have high regard for the Minister, her understanding of this sector and her ability. I hope that she takes the opportunity provided by this debate to set out how she will champion the English legal services sector in negotiations on the future relationship with the EU, with the intention that legal services are not left behind and will be given the tools to maintain their world-leading reputation for excellence after Brexit.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will not speak for very long, but I want to raise an important point about international arbitration while wearing my hat as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alternative dispute resolution, which looks at arbitration, mediation and other forms of dispute resolution.
I was pleased to see that the withdrawal agreement commits us to international arbitration to resolve any disputes between us and the European Union as we exit it. That is a very positive step forward and a good compromise to have received from the European Union. I pay tribute to the authors of the withdrawal agreement for getting the EU to agree to that. I put so much emphasis on international arbitration because it is arguably a cheaper and much quicker way of resolving disputes. As we have heard, we are a leading centre for arbitration, as the number of people who come to us from around the world indicates. They do that because of our distinguished judges and arbitrators, and because English law is admired around the world.
I raised that issue with the Lord Chief Justice this week, and I asked him how secure he is in believing that we will be able to continue with this regime after Brexit. He said, first, that it is difficult to see it continuing unless we do something about the fact that the number of judges is so diminished at the moment. That is a very important point. Arbitration is not solely based on judges, but we need judges with a great deal of experience.
The second thing he said—I made this point in an intervention—is that we need to be more aware of the alternative centres that are emerging around the world to deal with arbitration. I mentioned Singapore, which has put tremendous effort into developing a commercial solution. I hope that in the summer recess—assuming we still have one—I will be able to go out to Singapore to see for myself how its arbitration courts work and what sort of cases they deal with. We should be concentrating on those important things.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) said that legal services make an enormous contribution to the UK’s economic activity. I will not repeat what he said about them, other than to underline their phenomenal contribution.
I want much more emphasis to be put on tying up the elements that I have mentioned. We should not take for granted our legal position as the pre-eminent jurisdiction for arbitration. Our officials need some fight to ensure that we keep our jurisdiction and our reputation so that we can continue with that.
I stress the importance of ensuring that we have some sort of reciprocal arrangement for the family courts. My hon. Friend mentioned Brussels II and the maintenance regulations that apply to it. It is not the ideal form of governance of the situation with the European Union, but it is undoubtedly better than what preceded it, and we should be very careful about throwing it out.
I was disappointed not to see more in the withdrawal agreement about the protection of legal services. There is a gap there. It would have been nice to see more about how they will operate in the new environment and about how qualifications will continue to be recognised beyond the transition period. Those points have already been made, but I am happy to make them again because they are important and we need an answer.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) on securing the debate. I congratulate the all-party group on legal and constitutional affairs on its excellent report, which mirrors the Justice Committee’s conclusions in our report in the 2016-17 Session on the implications of Brexit for the justice system, especially in the areas that relate to co-operation in civil and commercial law. Our report, of course, went further and stressed the importance of continuing co-operation on criminal law and law enforcement, but our conclusions on the civil front are exactly in line with those of the all-party group. That is not surprising, because the evidence is entirely consistent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who serves on the Committee with me, stressed the other issue that we want to raise: family law. This is not just about the clients of big commercial firms. The ability to enforce judgments makes a difference to parents who are seeking to get maintenance from a partner in another EU jurisdiction. At the moment they can enforce their maintenance agreement without any difficulty, but they would be at a grave disadvantage if they were not able to do so.
Many of us will remember the problems that arose in the past with the growth of what is called parallel litigation in family cases, in relation to divorce, financial arrangements and child custody arrangements. The last thing we want is a crash-out arrangement. In theory, that would mean that, as of 1 April next year, a parent in the UK and one in another EU jurisdiction would be capable of commencing parallel proceedings in family matters.
John Howell
My hon. Friend is stressing the role of the family courts, but he might also want to mention the ability to handle child abduction equally on both sides.
Robert Neill
That is entirely right. Some of the worst examples, before we developed the mutual enforceability of judgments, related to child abduction. In cases involving non-EU states, in which we are a third country, the parent here—frequently the mother—was at a significant legal disadvantage and did not have the protections that we have under the current arrangements, particularly the recast Brussels arrangements. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that issue.
I want to make two other points very briefly. First, I support my hon. Friend’s point about English law. Those of us who have practised know that, because of the reputation of our system, it is almost the norm to find English law clauses in international contracts. We want that to continue, but it is concerning that the Bar Council and the Law Society have been reporting evidence—so far anecdotal, but strong—that the uncertainty and the risk of a crash-out arrangement without contractual continuity is leading some firms to advise their clients to have clauses excluding English law from contracts. It would be extremely troubling if that were to persist. The longer the uncertainty, the greater the risk.
Simmons & Simmons, a leading law firm, conducted a survey of clients in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands to look at what the courts in those countries might adopt if we were a third country and could not rely on the current arrangements. It reported that 88% of clients—people abroad buying British services—thought that the Government needed to make an early public statement to remove uncertainty, and 50% said that, without that, they would be inclined to move away from choosing English law or jurisdiction clauses. The situation is urgent, so I will back the withdrawal agreement because it will get us into a transitional arrangement, which will give continuity for that period. More importantly, contracts will run beyond the date on which we leave, and significant commercial litigation will almost certainly take more than two years to work its way through. I hope that those issues will also be taken on board.
Will the Minister consider a couple of suggestions by the City of London Corporation and TheCityUK, to which I am grateful, about failsafe devices—I do not like to use the word “backstop”, because it has certain controversial associations—that we could have in parallel with seeking to get the withdrawal agreement through and get into the transition period? It has been suggested that it would be reasonable to look at a means of copying the text of the Rome I and Rome II regulations into our own private international law. Those regulations, of course, determine the applicable law for contractual obligations. As well as seeking the transition, many lawyers think it would be advisable to copy those texts—in parallel, I suggest, as a belt and braces operation—which are much superior to anything that went before, into our law. It is also important that we consider re-signing The Hague convention as an independent party. That would be a failsafe, not my preferred objective, but we need to have those eventualities in mind. That would assist with certainty.
In her Mansion House speech, the Prime Minister talked about the Lugano convention. I think that most people would concede that Lugano, in its original form, is nothing like as good or effective as Brussels I and II in their recast form. They are the gold standard that my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon referred to. Will the Minister take away the idea that, to get us anything like as good as we have under Brussels, any Lugano would have to be a Lugano plus plus plus?
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, for giving way. The comments made in this debate bear a striking similarity to those made in the debate that followed the production of the Committee’s report. That just goes to stress the urgency of the situation. Law firms cannot wait forever to get a degree of certainty; the time for action is fast running out. Does he share my concerns about that?
Robert Neill
I agree that there is a danger of us becoming a legal version of groundhog day in these debates. I know that the Minister is absolutely committed to achieving continuity, but there is a real sense of frustration among practitioners because, although there are warm words, promises and statements of intent, and a Brexit law committee in which practitioners are involved is being set up, none the less, despite those strong wishes, the detail on future arrangements remains extremely scarce. If the Prime Minister succeeds in moving us on to the next stage, as I hope she does, it is absolutely critical that that detail is fleshed out at the earliest stage. I hope that we will take the opportunity of strengthening the political declaration that comes as part of the package with the withdrawal agreement, as the Prime Minister said today, so that it makes more reference to legal services in particular.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) on securing such an important debate, and I will touch on some of his remarks. He mentioned that the legal services sector contributed £26 billion to the economy. Like him, I look forward to hearing the Minister outline what her Department is doing to prepare for a hard Brexit, should that occur on 29 March.
My colleague on the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), mentioned a point made by Lord Chief Justice on the paucity of judges in the English system, which has come up from time to time in the Committee’s deliberations. I have made it a habit not to disagree with the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), because he is wise and rarely wrong, and he was right again, particularly when he brought up the potential position of family courts post-Brexit. He also mentioned that the discussion is akin to groundhog day, which I am pleased to tell him is on my birthday, so I look forward to a nice bottle of malt from him.
Gavin Newlands
Whatever the hon. Gentleman can afford; I would be most grateful.
On a more substantive point, we have heard today that Brexit has the capacity to complicate and disrupt every aspect of our lives. Over the decades, European co-operation on justice issues has undoubtedly led to countless criminals and victims getting justice. Brexit seriously risks that successful current arrangement for very little gain. It is vital that the UK Government do everything in their power to ensure that cross-border legal service arrangements are as close as possible to the current arrangements.
At the moment, it is unlikely that the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement will pass the House of Commons. On top of countless other problems, a no-deal Brexit would discard the agreement to have reciprocal recognition of legal qualifications. With their technical notice, the Government have provided something, but it does not provide anywhere near enough clarity on justice arrangements after a no-deal Brexit. I welcome the fact that under the withdrawal agreement, mutual recognition of legal professionals would continue at least during the transition period.
That is just one example that highlights how European Union membership benefits our justice system and society more widely. The Scottish National party will continue to argue that the best course of action for Scotland and the UK’s other constituent nations is full membership of the European Union. Failing that, even single market access via the European economic area and customs union membership would also allow current arrangements to continue unhindered.
We are hurtling rapidly towards a blindfold Brexit, with no clarity on what future arrangements will look like. Despite some of the welcome guarantees, we are still none the wiser about what the arrangements for legal services will look like. We remain gravely concerned about the future of legal services in Scotland and across the UK after transition. I urge the Minister and the UK Government, in the strongest possible terms, to get their act together and address that urgently in the future partnership arrangements.
No one can know for certain what will happen in the next few months, but it is clear that the Prime Minister will struggle to gain approval for the agreement, and a damaging no-deal Brexit is still a real possibility. As we heard from the hon. Member for Huntingdon in his opening speech, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive, the lawyers’ services directive and the lawyers’ establishment directive all provide reciprocal arrangements between EEA states for the recognition of qualifications, creating arrangements for European lawyers to register to practise permanently in another EEA state as a registered European lawyer. As the Government’s technical notice clearly states, if no deal came to pass, those reciprocal arrangements would cease to apply, which would result in a sharp end to them on 29 March. As we have heard in great detail, that would be an unmitigated disaster for law firms and lawyers who operate in the EU.
The Law Society of England and Wales carried out research on Brexit. Some £3 billion could be stripped from the sector’s turnover by 2025 if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal, and a hard Brexit could cut the legal sector’s rate of growth by half. The UK is a world-leading centre in legal expertise, as we have heard, and that standing could be irrevocably diminished because of Brexit—“global Britain” indeed. The Scottish National party has been consistently clear that freedom of movement and all the advantages that it brings should be allowed to continue in Scotland. Ending freedom of movement will jeopardise the continuing success of the legal sector in a country that voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. That will be heavily damaging and deeply unfair. It is vital that the legal sector continues to receive the benefits of freedom of movement, and retaining freedom of movement is the simplest way to secure that.
Andrew Langdon, Chair of the Bar, told the Justice Committee that
“without the free movement of lawyers nothing else of much importance will be salvaged”,
arguing that lawyers’ ability to represent local clients in cases with EU connections is important for the individuals and businesses they represent.
Stakeholders and leading legal experts are desperately calling out for clarity and decisive action from the Government. A sector that is especially vital to the UK economy is under threat, and our lawyers need answers beyond the transition period. If the Prime Minister cannot get an agreement through the House, we seriously risk subjecting the sector to further irreparable damage. It is therefore better to reverse the whole shambolic process and remain in the European Union, so that we would retain the benefits, not only in the justice system but in countless other areas that have enjoyed benefits for decades. At the very least, we should come to an agreement on retaining membership of the single market and the customs union, but if, as I fear, we do not, I suspect many Scots will feel that they have no choice but to exercise their democratic right to regain all those benefits by choosing an independent path of their own within the European Union.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) on securing the debate, and thank him for his comprehensive speech, which dealt with the issues and challenges we will face once the Brexit negotiations have been carried out. I commend him on the work that he has done as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal and constitutional affairs in the inquiry on the effects of Brexit on legal services.
This has been a thoughtful and considered debate. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), who does a superb job as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alternative dispute resolution. He discussed the need for arbitration and how it, too, is important to UK legal services. I hope we have further debates, for example on family law protection or the European arrest warrant post-Brexit. Serious concerns have been expressed in all parts of the Chamber.
As we have heard, Brexit will be the largest ever change to the UK’s legal framework, which presents many concerns and risks for the legal sector. Regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, we need to ensure that citizens and businesses in the UK continue to have certainty about access to justice in civil, commercial, consumer and family law matters. That requires clarity on the responsibilities of the courts in the United Kingdom and in the European Union, and certainty that judgments can be enforced with a minimum of delay and cost.
The UK legal services market, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon said, is worth anything between £25 billion and £30 billion in total, employs 370,000 people and in 2015 generated an estimated £3.3 billion of net export revenue. Central to that market is the ability of barristers, solicitors and other legal professionals to provide legal services in the European Union. Equally importantly, our exporters’ confidence in doing business abroad depends greatly on the ability of their lawyers to establish and provide services in the countries in which they seek to trade and invest. Numerous aspects of the work of barristers and solicitors will no longer be possible when we leave the European Union, unless existing cross-border rights are preserved.
The Government must therefore have regard to the nature of the legal work that comes to the UK as a result of the UK legal profession’s expertise, not least in European Union law. Will the Minister tell us what measures the Government are taking to maintain cross-border legal practice rights and opportunities for the UK legal sector, given efforts by European Union law firms to use Brexit to win clients from UK competitors?
The draft withdrawal agreement, like the White Paper before it, continues to emphasise regulatory flexibility in the context of services, which would not assist the legal sector. Legal services do not need further regulatory flexibility: the regime in the European Union is already considered to be among the most liberal in the world, and provides lawyers with the freedom to advise and represent their clients anywhere in the EU and in any dispute resolution forum.
The Government have also made mention of adopting the approach of a free trade agreement to services. That is disappointing. Will the Minister explain how a binding EU-wide regulatory framework for legal services could be agreed in the context of a free trade agreement? Is there a danger that the legal profession in the UK would be left to negotiate different bilateral agreements covering the provision of legal services with many of the EU member states? Will that leave a patchwork of rights and obligations, varying from country to country?
I am also concerned that lawyers from England and Wales might lose their right to advise on European law when in the EU. UK businesses, which will still need to operate under EU law, will be unable to have their trusted UK legal professionals by their side and will instead be forced to hire EU lawyers with whom they are not familiar, and vice versa—despite language and other barriers—to protect and defend their rights within the European Union. Indeed, lawyers from England and Wales will even lose the right to defend the UK Government, as well as UK businesses and UK citizens, before the Court of Justice of the European Union, despite a former president of the Court recognising the UK profession for providing some of the best advocates. That would be a huge loss to both the UK and the European Union. Will the Minister in her response confirm that the Government will ensure that any future relationship with the European Union includes a mechanism for UK lawyers to practise EU law via the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and law firm structures?
The deal lacks the detail that the professional services sector needs to know in other respects, in particular with regards to temporary mobility for business travel. Do the Minister and the Government appreciate that that is essential for the quick delivery of legal services? For example, a lawyer might need to see a client at short notice in one of the EU members states, or to represent that client in an arbitration or mediation meeting. Will she ensure that, post-Brexit, UK lawyers are able to continue to serve their clients on a fly-in, fly-out basis? Does the Minister recognise that the UK risks not only the loss of the tax revenue from legal services, but an erosion of the enormous influence and soft power generated by our legal services sector in Europe and internationally?
Finally, I remind the Minister that the UK is the largest market for legal services in Europe, and globally is second only to the US. The Government must do all that they can to protect Britain’s legal services sector after Brexit if the country is to remain the world’s jurisdiction of choice. Equally, it is vital to ensure that international parties understand the ongoing benefits of using English law and legal services once the United Kingdom has left the European Union. An efficient and cost-effective resolution of disputes is critical to that goal and to the ongoing development of English law. After all, that is at the core of the international attractiveness of the United Kingdom.
I hope the Minister and the Ministry of Justice will consider properly some of the representations made by the Law Society and the Bar Council. We all want the best for legal services, and I hope the Minister will respond on such an urgent issue and perhaps tell us what concrete steps the Department and the Government have taken to deal with it, and with the concerns. I am sure the concerns are not new and that the Government are not unaware of them, so I look forward to hearing from her.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) on securing this debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in it, as the future of UK legal services and their promotion after we leave the EU is important. I am particularly delighted to respond to a debate of my hon. Friend, who not only has extremely ably occupied my role as a former Justice Minister, but is knowledgeable on this issue as a non-practising solicitor, the co-chair of the APPG on legal and constitutional affairs and a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee. I am also grateful to him and to his APPG for their thorough and helpful report.
In that report, the APPG and my hon. Friend recognise the significance of our legal sector. As he rightly said, it is a great success story. The sector is worth at least—it varies—£24 billion a year. The UK’s trade surplus in legal services has nearly doubled over the past 10 years and now accounts for about 10% of global legal services fee revenue. Importantly, the sector provides jobs—it drives employment by employing well over 300,000 people. Those jobs are found throughout the UK, although we also have a huge hub of specialist lawyers, many of whom support our vital financial services sector.
English law, as many people have said today, is the most widely used in the world, with 27% of the world’s jurisdictions using it. International firms want to operate in this country, which is why more than 200 foreign law firms have offices in the UK. UK-based firms also operate around the world, and nearly 7,000 practising solicitors from the UK work abroad. My hon. Friend is right to identify that people come here for their legal disputes because of the integrity of our judges, the professionalism of our lawyers and our respect for the rule of law.
My hon. Friend highlighted that the report recognises that
“Brexit will be the largest ever change to the UK’s legal framework and it presents both opportunities and risks for the legal sector.”
It also recognises that the ability of solicitors, barristers and chartered legal executives to practice as lawyers in the EU is important to lawyers and, as my hon. Friend Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) mentioned, the people whom those lawyers serve.
As far as the transitional period is concerned, market access will remain the same. The draft withdrawal agreement provides that, during the implementation period, EU and UK professionals working in the UK or EU will continue to have their professional qualifications recognised. We set out in the future economic partnership White Paper our proposal for new arrangements for services and investment after we leave the single market. We must recognise that we will no longer be in the single market and that there will be implications for market access.
The outline political declaration made last week identifies:
“Ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services”.
Those go well beyond World Trade Organisation commitments. The political declaration also identifies the need for provisions on market access and the importance of non-discrimination, and records the need for arrangements on professional qualifications. Alongside that, the mobility framework will support businesses to provide services—that includes travelling freely without a visa for temporary business activity, for example.
The outline political declaration will be built on and finalised with the aim of producing a full political declaration, which we hope can happen before the end of the month. In a no-deal scenario, there will be no basis for reciprocity—registered European lawyer status, which allows European economic area lawyers to practice permanently in the UK under their home title, will be phased out after exit. New entrants will be able to seek recognition of their qualifications and be admitted to the UK profession in the same way as third-country lawyers. There will be a transitional framework until 31 December 2020 for EEA lawyers and business owners to transfer their qualifications or adapt their business model.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) asked me what preparations my Department was making for no deal. As a competent Government, we are making preparations for no deal. We have issued two technical notices, we are preparing our no-deal statutory instruments and we received £17.3 million in the spring statement, which was allocated to our Department to make suitable arrangements. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made important points about laws that we can take advantage of in the event of no deal. We will incorporate Rome I and Rome II into our laws and we will sign up to The Hague convention in our own right.
Beyond negotiations with the EU27, we are working with the sector to promote the benefits of market liberalisation. We want to ensure the continued pre-eminence of UK legal services and English law. The Government are committed to championing the legal services sector. We are building our international and domestic relationships and leveraging them to promote the sector overseas. We are working to improve legal services market access. We will seek opportunities in future trade agreements to include ambitious provisions for services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) was right to identify the importance of international arbitration. Companies often choose the UK as the seat of international arbitration, which is an important part of the sector. The Ministry of Justice is working across the board to prepare for the UK’s exit from the EU, as well as continuing to promote legal services on the international stage.
Mr Djanogly
It is not often that I get the chance to respond to the Minister, because normally so many people want to speak. I am pleased to do so. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for their contributions, and the Minister for her response.
I did not hear a lot of difference in the approach across the piece. We know the issues and what we want to get to. Interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst spoke about a Committee report from two years ago that dealt with the same issues. Two years later, we have come to the same conclusions in this report—it is not even as though this is a new finding. We all want mutual market access, we want the importance of a labour mobility framework and we see the need for legal certainty.
Several hon. Members said that if those things are not achieved and, as a result, English law clauses are included to a lesser degree in contracts, there is potential for very lasting damage to our legal services. That must be of great concern to everyone in this Chamber. Various treaties were mentioned—Lugano and so forth—but relying on those would be second best. We want the best for our legal services sector. I hope the message has been received and that, as we go into further negotiations, the Minister will bang the drum for legal services as I am sure she will.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the provision of legal services after the UK leaves the EU.
Written Statements
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I am today laying before Parliament “The Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2018”. This is the seventh report since the Armed Forces Act 2011 established the armed forces covenant and set out the requirement for the Defence Secretary to report progress annually to Parliament. The covenant is a promise by the nation to ensure that those who serve, or have served, and their families are treated fairly and suffer no disadvantage. Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given the most such as the injured or the bereaved. The sacrifices made by serving personnel, veterans and their families should be recognised accordingly.
I am proud to present this report to Parliament, describing what the Government have done to uphold the principles of the covenant. In the context of the 100-year anniversary of the Armistice, it is particularly important to consider the role of the armed forces in society today. Following the recent launch of the “Strategy for our Veterans” (Cm 9726) and the consultation paper (Cm 9727), the annual report focuses on serving personnel and families, explaining how we provide support to the whole of the armed forces community. The theme of delivering effective support acknowledges the nation’s improving understanding of not just the needs of the armed forces community, but also how we can support them to make best use of the diverse skills and experiences that they offer wider society. While we are now better placed to measure our progress in delivering the covenant and mitigating disadvantage to the armed forces community, we know there is much more still to be achieved, particularly in ensuring consistency of outcomes.
The report covers progress on healthcare, education, accommodation, inquests, family life, through-life support, and business and community. Key highlights of this year’s report include: the expansion of the Department for Education’s common transfer file to capture more contextual information on service children from September 2018; the publication of guidance to ease the impact on serving personnel and families moving between administrations; the announcement of the 3,000th signatory to the covenant; the relocation of the defence medical rehabilitation centre to a new purpose-built facility at Stanford Hall; and the launch of NHS England’s veterans mental health complex treatment service.
The report also explains the creation of the independent Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust as an independent charity, to manage the £10 million per annum covenant fund. The new status will allow a more flexible approach to grant-making.
The report has been compiled in consultation with other Government Departments, the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland, and with key stakeholders in Northern Ireland. The external members of the covenant reference group, which includes the three service families federations, the Confederation of Service Charities, the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, the War Widows Association and Professor Hew Strachan, have also been consulted.
[HCWS1094]
Student Loans Company: Review
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I am announcing today the start of a tailored review of the Student Loans Company, a non-profit making Government-owned organisation, which disperses grants to students in universities and colleges in the UK. The SLC has been classified as an Executive NDPB since 1996 and its current shareholding structure, split between the Department for Education (DFE) and the devolved Administrations, has been in place since 2013.
As a non-department public body (NDPB) sponsored by DFE, the Student Loans Company is required to undergo a tailored review at least once in every Parliament. The principal aims of tailored reviews are to ensure public bodies remain fit for purpose, are well governed and properly accountable for what they do.
The review will provide a robust scrutiny of, and assurance on, the continuing need for the Student Loans Company—both its function and its form. It will assess the governance and control arrangements in place to ensure they are compliant with the recognised principles of good corporate governance and delivering good value for money. The structure, efficiency and effectiveness of the Student Loans Company will be considered throughout the review.
A challenge panel, chaired by a DFE non-executive director, will examine the findings of both stages of the review.
The review will follow guidance published in 2016 by the Cabinet Office: “Tailored Reviews: Guidance on Reviews of Public Bodies”. This can be found on gov.uk.
In conducting this tailored review, officials will engage with a broad range of stakeholders across the UK, including across UK Government, devolved Administrations, business and civil society, as well as with the Student Loans Company’s own staff and management.
I shall inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed and copies of the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1095]
General Affairs Council
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) meeting on 12 November in Brussels. A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at:
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2018/11/12/.
Values of the Union—Hungary/article 7(1) TEU reasoned proposal
The presidency informed Ministers of its meeting with the European Parliament to discuss the reasoned opinion.
Rule of law in Poland—article 7(1) TEU reasoned proposal
The Commission briefed Ministers on developments since the GAC meeting in October and recommended that there should be a third hearing on the rule of law in Poland at the December GAC.
Preparation of December European Council on 13 and 14 December 2018
Ministers discussed the draft agenda for the December European Council which comprises the multiannual financial framework, the single market, migration and external relations. Ministers welcomed the agenda and, in discussions on migration, called for more progress to be made on the implementation of the approach agreed at previous meetings of the European Council. I intervened to underline the need to disrupt people smuggling networks and their business models and to tackle the challenges of migration upstream.
As part of the discussions on external relations, the European Council will consider measures to address online disinformation. Ministers welcomed the inclusion of a new joint action plan to tackle disinformation in the 2019 Commission work programme. I intervened to highlight the UK’s support for this work and reminded Ministers of the need to ensure that freedom of speech was respected.
Annual rule of law dialogue
Ministers took part in the fourth annual rule of law dialogue and considered the levels of trust that EU citizens have in public institutions. Ministers discussed the threat posed by political apathy, online disinformation and hostile cyber-activity in electoral processes. The presidency will prepare draft conclusions on the dialogue and these will be discussed further by Council working groups.
Multiannual financial framework 2021-27
The Council discussed progress on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) proposals. The Commission and the presidency noted that the significant progress made since June would ensure that leaders would be in a position to discuss the MFF at the European Council meeting in December.
Legislative programming—Commission’s work programme 2019
The Commission presented the Commission work programme for 2019 and set out the measures it will take over the next 10 weeks to conclude proposals in relation to economic growth, competition, climate change, cyber-attacks and disinformation.
Subsidiarity package
The Commission presented its subsidiarity package which was published on 23 October. The package seeks to strengthen the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity in EU decision making. In those areas which do not form part of the EU’s exclusive competence, the principle of subsidiarity means that action should only be taken at EU level when the desired objectives cannot be effectively achieved by action taken at national or regional level.
European semester 2019—road map
The Austrian presidency and the incoming Romanian presidency presented the timetable for the 2019 European semester, which will provide a framework for the co-ordination of economic policies across the EU.
[HCWS1096]
Government Hospitality Wine Cellar Annual Report
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I have today placed a copy of the Government hospitality wine cellar annual report for the financial year 2017-18 in the Libraries of both Houses.
Following the outcome of the review of the Government hospitality wine cellar in 2011, this seventh annual report continues our commitment to annual reporting to Parliament on the use of the wine cellar, covering consumption, stock purchases, costs, and value for money. The wine cellar has been self-funding since 2011-12, through the sale of some high-value stock and payments made by other Government Departments for events organised by Government hospitality.
The report notes that:
The highest consumption level by volume was again of English and Welsh wine, at 57% of the total (cf. 52% in 16-17);
The highest volume of purchases was of English and Welsh wines at 64% of the total;
Consumption by volume increased by some 20% in FY 2017-18 due to an increased number of larger events;
Sales of stock amounted to £50,600 (cf. £40,800 in FY 16-17);
Further funds from other Government Departments added £26,494 to the overall receipts (cf. £16,234 in 16-17);
Purchases amounted to £56,976 (ex-VAT), an increase of 26% by value cf. £45,042 in 16-17.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-11-21/HCWS1098/.
[HCWS1098]
Grand Committee
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2018.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice, which has helped to inform the draft order before us. The order was first laid before Parliament on 17 October and will control pregabalin and gabapentin as class C drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Should the order be made, pregabalin and gabapentin will be subject to permanent control under Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 through an amendment to Part 3, which specifies the drugs that are subject to control under the 1971 Act as class C drugs.
The order follows the recommendation from the ACMD to control the two drugs under class C of the 1971 Act, as their harms are comparable with those of other substances controlled as class C drugs. To help those with a legitimate medical need access these drugs, and subject to Parliament’s approval of the order before the Committee now, we will schedule both drugs under Schedule 3 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 through regulations.
Pregabalin and gabapentin are prescription medicines which are used to manage a number of disabling long-term conditions, including epilepsy. They are also licensed for the treatment of general anxiety disorders. In its advice, the ACMD identified a number of harms—in particular, it drew attention to the dangers that can arise when the drugs are used in combination with other central nervous system depressants. In these circumstances, they can cause drowsiness, sedation, respiratory failure and death.
The ACMD also highlighted the risk of addiction that pregabalin and gabapentin presented, as well as the potential for illegal diversion and medicinal misuse. Its advice also drew attention to the concerns of health staff in prisons who reported a high number of prisoners being prescribed the drugs without a thorough assessment of their needs.
Across the United Kingdom, there have been significant increases in the prescription of both drugs: pregabalin prescriptions have increased from 2.7 million in 2012 to 6.25 million in 2017, while gabapentin prescriptions have risen from 3.5 million in 2012 to over 7 million in 2017. In tandem, there has been an increase in the number of deaths related to pregabalin and gabapentin since 2009. In the last five years there have been 408 deaths where pregabalin was mentioned on the death certificate, and 203 in the case of gabapentin. This compares with four and one for pregabalin and gabapentin respectively in 2009.
By controlling the two drugs, we will restrict the potential for misuse by making diversion and their illicit supply more difficult but without compromising access for those who have a legitimate need to access the drugs for healthcare purposes. Parliament’s approval of this order will enable UK law enforcement to take action against those who illegally supply these drugs and against those who illegally possess them. Possession of a class C drug is an offence resulting in up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine, and the supply or production of a class C drug is an offence resulting in up to 14 years in prison or an unlimited fine.
If approved, the order will send a clear message to the public that the drugs should only be in the possession of those who have been legitimately prescribed them. We hope that the significant supply offences for class C drugs will make people think twice before they consider diverting pregabalin and gabapentin into the illegal market.
The measure to control these drugs is scheduled to come into force in April 2019. Given the widespread use of the two medicines, this will help to provide the healthcare sector with sufficient time to implement the new requirements. I can assure Members that all relevant information will be communicated to other stakeholders and the wider public. The Home Office will issue a circular with legislative guidance for the police and the courts. Guidance will also be published following engagement with interested parties about the effect of the legislation in preparation for it coming into force in April. In addition, the Government will continue to update its messaging on the harms of these substances.
I hope I have made the case to control these harmful drugs and I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining the order to us. As she has said, this puts two substances into class C of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
We support any evidence-based scientific approach to reducing the harm caused by drugs, legal or illegal. My question is very simple. The noble Baroness talked about a very clear message being sent to the public, but why do the Government not always act on the scientific, evidence-based assessment of the ACMD?
The problem with drugs classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act is threefold. First, based on independent scientific assessment, drugs are not classified according to the potential harm that they cause. For example, GHB—gamma-hydroxybutyrate—is believed to cause a significant number of deaths—perhaps as many as several a week in the UK alone. Yet it is classified as a class C drug. Cannabis which, to my knowledge has not been the direct cause of any drug-related death, is a class B drug. Because of this, and several other misclassifications of which I could give examples, the classification of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act has fallen into disrepute among those who might arguably be helped most if they knew that the classification of drugs was based on how dangerous they were.
At this stage, I should point out an interest to the Committee. A former partner, who then became my best friend and who was very experienced in the use of recreational drugs, died from an accidental overdose of GHB.
Secondly, because the classification system does not reflect potential harm, only potential sentence, it has become irrelevant to most drug users. They quite simply work on the basis that the penalty is irrelevant to them as they have no intention of getting caught.
Thirdly, any drug classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act carries a heavier penalty than a new psychoactive substance covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 in that possession of a new psychoactive substance is not an offence, whereas possession of any drug classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act is an offence. This is even though some of the new psychoactive substances are more harmful than drugs classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Our drugs laws are a mess, the Government’s drugs strategy is ineffective and, if we are to stop our young people dying, we need a fundamental rethink. We called for a scientific, evidence-based review of our drugs laws when we debated the Psychoactive Substances Bill—a proposition both the Conservative and Labour Benches refused to support. Therefore, I note with interest the comments of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Victoria Atkins, in the other place, when this order was discussed by the Tenth Delegated Legislation Committee on 12 November this year, at 6.05 pm, where she said that the Government have announced,
“an independent review of the misuse of drugs in the 21st century”. —[Official Report, Commons, Tenth Delegated Legislation Committee, 12/11/18; col. 4.]
Can the Minister provide the Committee with further details of who will be conducting this review, what their terms of reference are, and any other details that may be of interest?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the order and its provisions. We support it but I have some points that I would like to raise. As has been said, the order controls pregabalin and gabapentin as class C drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Currently these two substances are subject to the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.
The two substances are used, as the Minister has said, to manage a number of disabling long-term conditions including epilepsy and general anxiety disorders. Although they have legitimate medicinal uses for which they can continue to be used, the two substances in question, when taken with other central nervous system depressants, can be the cause of serious harm including respiratory failure and, at worst, death. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has said the two substances in question can be addictive, with the potential for illegal diversion and supply and medicinal misuse. Prescription rates have soared—the Minister gave the figures—while the number of deaths related to the two substances have also increased: just over 400 from pregabalin over the last five years and just over 200 from gabapentin.
Concerns were raised in 2014 by the Health and Social Care Board about the potential misuse of pregabalin. Apparently, in February 2015 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons reported concerns of health staff in prisons that a high number of prisoners were being prescribed the drugs without a thorough assessment of their needs, and in a way that did not meet best-practice guidelines. Does that mean prisoners in prison being prescribed the drugs without a thorough assessment of their needs or prisoners prior to their coming into prisons being prescribed the drugs in the wrong way? Either way, the question must be how that has been allowed to happen. What will the planned guidance and communication say to address the issue of drugs of this kind being prescribed without a thorough assessment of the patient’s needs?
For how many years have these two substances been available? What is it that starts the procedure for the control of such substances as class C drugs as per this order? With concerns being raised in 2014, it does not seem to be a particularly quick process. Who or what organisation makes the initial move, and what is then the procedure for getting the matter before the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs? Or is it the advisory council that has to take the initiative in the first instance?
Paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Enforcement of offences in relation to drugs controlled by the Order will be subsumed into the overall enforcement response to controlled drugs”.
That statement is in marked contrast to the impact of the order on pharmacies, GPs and the NHS as a whole, for which precise figures have been given in the Explanatory Memorandum with regard to the additional cost. So what will the additional cost be of implementing this order to the police, the court system and the Prison and Probation Service of enforcing these new offences? What is the estimated number of new offences that will be committed each year as a result of controlling these two substances as class C drugs? Is the reality for our overstretched police that either they will not arrest many people for offences related to those two substances or, if they do, it will be at the expense of investigating, enforcing and arresting people for other offences? Is that what,
“subsumed into the overall enforcement response to controlled drugs”,
really means? If not, what does that phrase mean?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank both noble Lords for their points. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about the review of drugs. As he said, the Home Secretary announced on 2 October a major, independently led review of drug misuse. While the review will obviously not cover prescription drugs, it will look at a wide range of issues, including the system of support and enforcement around drug misuse, to inform our thinking about what more can be done to tackle drug harms. It will make sure that we know as much as possible about who drug users are, what they are taking and how often, so that law enforcement agencies and the police are able effectively to target and prevent the drug-related causes of violent crime. We will shortly set out the terms of reference and the name of the reviewer, which I cannot give at this point. The review will inform our thinking and help shape what more we can do to tackle drugs and drug harms.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether the drugs are prescribed before people come into prisons or while they are there. I do not have that answer now, but whether the drugs are used before prison or while in prison, it is a problem in the prison estate. I will provide him with a breakdown of where we think the prescribing occurs.
The noble Lord asked whether the Government had asked the ACMD or vice versa. The Government can ask the ACMD for its advice, but the ACMD can also ask the Government to instigate an assessment of drug scheduling. On the additional cost, the financial implications are set out in the impact assessment. The cost in year 1 to pharmacies is estimated to be about £97,000 and the cost to the CPS £172,000. There is an additional dispensing cost to the NHS which is estimated at present value to be £53.7 million over 10 years. That has obvious implications for GPs. Officials will meet the necessary bodies to outline the effect on GPs’ practices of the rescheduling of both drugs.
Lord Rosser
The issue was not that I was not aware of the costs on GPs, pharmacies and the NHS, because they are spelled out in great detail in the document, even telling us what is the average pay per hour, working out that it would require five minutes for people to find out how to operate the new system and working out the cost of five minutes at £20 or £30 per hour—whatever the figure is. My point is that there is no reference to the cost of the order on the police, the criminal justice service, the probation service or the Prison Service—people can be sent to prison for up to two years. It just says that the cost will be subsumed into the overall cost of dealing with controlled drugs. I find it odd that the Government can set out the calculations in enormous detail of what it will cost pharmacies, GPs and the NHS but remain utterly silent on what the cost will be to the criminal justice system.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I outlined the projected costs to the CPS in year one, but the noble Lord asks a reasonable question and I will try to get him an answer. As he says, the number of organisations affected is stated in the impact assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me about the exemption from the 1971 regulations. If I may, I shall write to him. Oh, it was the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Lord Rosser
My point was that small businesses appear to have been exempt from the 1973 regulations in relation to the provision of a safe or appropriate cabinet. I shall stand corrected if I have got it wrong, but I understand that that was not what the advisory committee recommended. Why has the advisory committee’s recommendation been ignored in this case and what are the implications of not applying the 1973 regulations in relation to storage in safes and cabinets?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Again, that is a reasonable point—and I now have the answer. We accepted the ACMD advice in principle, subject to consultation.
Lord Rosser
But am I nevertheless correct in saying that the ACMD did not say that the 1973 regulations should not apply? I am well aware that there is consultation; the document says that small businesses were dead against the regulations being applied, which may not be a surprise. I am asking about the implications of not applying those 1973 regulations, bearing in mind that, as I understand it, the ACMD did not say that they should not apply?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I go back to the consultation. Following the provisions of this option will mean that, although the drugs will be subject to auditing requirements, there will be no requirement to store them in controlled drugs safes—as the noble Lord said. Apparently, a significant number of respondents did not think that organisations could accommodate the drugs in existing safes, and expressed concern that this would result in substantial additional costs associated with buying and installing such safes.
Lord Rosser
I thank the noble Baroness for her promise to write to me, but these regulations about storage were drawn up with a purpose, to prevent something happening. It is now being said that they will not apply, although, as I understand it, that is not what the ACMD recommended. What is the downside of not applying the regulations, which were presumably made with a purpose? Clearly, the people most against them being applied were the small businesses that would be affected. Can I be told what the downside of not applying them is? Why was the recommendation of the ACMD not followed? I understand that there was consultation, I understand that there were groups which were against that, but perhaps they had a vested interest.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think that the issue is slightly more complex than it appears at face value. If the noble Lord will oblige me, I will write to him on this point but on that note, I beg to move.
Motion agreed.
Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the Grand Committee do consider the Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and will be needed if the UK leaves the European Union next March without a deal. Following the UK’s decision to leave the EU after the referendum in 2016, the Government have been working to develop a positive future relationship with the EU. This would include a comprehensive and ambitious air transport agreement.
The Department for Transport has undertaken a significant amount of work with respect to the withdrawal negotiations and to prepare for the range of their potential outcomes. The best outcome is for the UK to leave with a deal and, as noble Lords will be aware, a draft withdrawal agreement is being considered. We remain confident that this agreement will enter into force at the end of March next year but, as a responsible Government, we must make all reasonable plans to prepare for a no-deal scenario. To that extent, we have conducted particularly intensive work to ensure that there continues to be a well-functioning legislative and regulatory regime for aviation. We set out in the technical notices in September how this would work and this instrument provides the means to deliver some of those outcomes.
EU Regulation 1008/2008 provides the basis for the internal market in air services. It consolidated provisions within a number of prior regulations that had gradually liberalised the market for air services within the EU. The regulation sets out harmonised conditions for the licensing of air carriers in the EU and provides the right for any EU-licensed air carrier to operate on any route within the EU, without prior authorisation. The regulation prohibits market distortions which had historically existed in Europe, such as restrictions on pricing or the ability of air carriers to freely set air fares and lease each other’s aircraft. It also sets out common rules for the provision of public service obligations through scheduled flights to peripheral regions that would not otherwise be commercially viable.
A further element of the internal market provided for by this regulation is for wet leasing. A wet lease is when one air carrier leases an aircraft together with its crew, maintenance and insurance from another operator. EU air carriers can freely wet lease aircraft registered in the EU, provided that it would not endanger safety, but restrictions are imposed on the lease of aircraft from beyond the EU. The EU has also pursued an external aviation policy by agreeing comprehensive air transport agreements with third countries, and by seeking consistency in the provisions of the bilateral air service agreements between member states and third countries. Regulation 847/2004 establishes a procedure for member states to notify each other and the Commission, and to work together on the negotiation and conclusion of air service agreements.
The draft regulations we are considering today fix deficiencies in the retained EU regulations, alongside the preserved domestic legislation made to implement aspects of those regulations, so that the statute book continues to function correctly after exit day in the event of no deal. The effect of these fixes was described in the technical notice published in September, which set out how the UK would regulate air carriers. Many of the fixes make it clear that the retained legislation applies only to the UK. For instance, references to “Community air carrier” are replaced with “UK air carrier”. Another amendment requires air carriers to have their principal place of business in “the United Kingdom” rather than in “a member state”. Since, in the event of no deal, the UK would no longer participate in the EU’s external aviation policy and the Commission would have no authority in the UK, regulation 847/2004 would be revoked. The UK would be free to negotiate bilateral air services agreements with other countries without regard to the Commission or EU member states.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, this is really the most extraordinary debate in which I have ever taken part. I say this with no disrespect to the low key introduction by the Minister in which she explained exactly what is happening—at least the detail, but not the context of it. Sitting in this Committee Room are a number of Members of the House and officials who would be much better occupied doing something useful. We are looking at a proposal—a statutory instrument—for a no-deal situation which the Government do not want and which the vast majority of people in the House of Commons do not want. We are going to spend hours dealing with many more.
This is one of nearly 700 statutory instruments that are coming before us because of this crazy Brexit in which we are currently involved. Even allowing for all those qualifications and even if we have to, this is not a satisfactory way of doing it. This has such major implications that it would normally be in a Bill discussed on the Floor of the House at Second Reading and then in detailed consideration in Committee. We would go through all the implications, discuss them, consider amendments and work out what was wrong and what was right. Now we are expecting it to go through on the nod in this Grand Committee. I hope not to spoil these expectations—it might do. It is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the situation.
Then we get the report of Sub-Committee A of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. This Committee has had to divide into two sub-committees. My noble friend Lord Cunningham has taken over the duty of chairing the second sub-committee to look at this in detail. They are doing a good job under very difficult circumstances. On this statutory instrument they have come up with a devastating report—one of the most devastating I have seen:
“We draw these Regulations to the special attention of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.
It continues in paragraph 11:
“The House may wish nonetheless to press the Minister further on how, in the event of “no deal”, bilateral arrangements between the UK and individual states will be put in place before exit day to ensure there is no gap in the continuation of flights between the UK and the EU after 29 March 2019”.
The Minister dealt to some extent with that, but not fully, and I shall come to the detail of that later. Paragraphs 13 and 16 outline the additional responsibilities that the CAA will have and doubt whether it will be able to deal with them without substantial additional resources—which, again, would be better spent elsewhere instead of doing something completely unnecessary. Paragraph 22 states:
“The House may wish to press the Minister on the issues of reciprocity that arise in maintaining the current wet leasing arrangements”.
I have not previously seen a report that raises so many questions.
Look at what is happening outside the Chamber. In an excellent report by Chris Morris, the BBC’s Reality Check correspondent—thank goodness that we have people doing reality checks particularly on Brexit—he points out that if we leave with no withdrawal agreement,
“the UK would no longer be part of the EU’s single aviation market, which is the basis for flights in and out of the country at the moment, not just to the EU itself, but to other countries with which the EU has a deal—such as the United States and Canada. In all, the EU governs direct UK aviation access to 44 other countries”.
As the Minister said, and as the report states, of course, you can always negotiate new agreements,
“but access would start at a pretty low level and negotiations take time”.
We know that they will take a substantial time. He continued:
“That's why a sudden no-deal scenario is so alarming to the industry”.
That was even pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October last year:
“The UK would no longer be governed by the regulations of the European Aviation Safety Agency, which deal with all sorts of things like maintenance and common standards”.
As the report states, we would have to undertake the responsibility of dealing with those ourselves—again, extra expenditure:
“The UK Civil Aviation Authority could … take on all the same rules, and hire lots of new staff to implement and oversee them, but it would”,
then have not only the extra expenditure, but,
“have to convince other international regulators to recognise it—another time-consuming process”.
So we would have to go round to convince all the other regulators that they should recognise our approach. As the Reality Check correspondent said,
“if you're following EU aviation rules in full, you basically have to accept a role for EU courts like the European Court of Justice as well”.
According to the Prime Minister, we will no longer be subject to the European Court of Justice, but it will be involved in this, according to the BBC report. All of this makes it difficult for airlines that are already selling tickets for flights after the planned Brexit, which many of us here hope will not go ahead. The report continues:
“‘Right now we will continue to sell in the hope and belief that when a conclusion comes to the Brexit scenario, common sense will prevail and people will realise the need for intra-Europe travel’, said Roy Kinnear, the chief commercial officer of FlyBe. ‘The biggest fear has to be if at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute there is a complete cessation and breakdown, and a shutdown of air travel between the UK and Europe”.
It is being predicted that they could be a total shutdown of traffic between the United Kingdom and Europe.
The International Air Transport Authority is worried. IATA states:
“The UK government’s papers on the air transport implications of a “no deal” departure from the EU clearly exposes the extreme seriousness of what is at stake and underscores the huge amount of work that would be required to maintain vital air links”.
Its director-general said:
“While we still hope for a comprehensive EU-UK deal, an assumption that ‘it will be all right on the night’ is far too risky to accept”.
That is what the Government are accepting: it will be all right on the night. We have heard them say something equivalent to that so many occasions.
I could go on at great length; I have lots more to say.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Well, the Minister is encouraging me to do that. Lots more could be said.
The development of low-cost airlines, which we and—I was going to say “our” constituents—the constituents of Members of the other place have all taken advantage of, has been based on arrangements agreed within the European Union, which we have been part of.
I have a specific question for the Minister. Access to the EU’s internal market for air transport could be retained by the UK joining the European common aviation area. Membership is not restricted to EU member states. However, membership would require the UK to accept EU aviation laws and may be incompatible with the stated desire of the UK Government to be extricated from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Given the awful prospect of no deal, which almost all of us pray will not happen, will we consider joining the ECAA and therefore accept the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice?
The question of leasing was also raised by the committee. At present, aircraft owned by or leased to nationals of, or companies with their principal base of business or registered office in, the EEA and the Commonwealth, may be registered in the United Kingdom. Will this ability to register aircraft on the UK aircraft register be open to EEA entities post Brexit?
The airlines have made various comments. Michael O’Leary, the outspoken chief executive—I do not think that he has been got rid of yet—of Ryanair, said that a no-deal Brexit was now more likely and that, in such a scenario, flights would be grounded. IAG, which owns British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus, was more positive in its assessment. Willie Walsh—wee Willie Walsh—said in March that he firmly believed that the issue of flying rights would be resolved. Well, what I understand it to have done to resolve it is move its headquarters out of London to Madrid—that is a strange way of resolving it—like many others are moving out of London because of Brexit.
This is a total disaster. I hope that the Minister will answer the questions. I hope that she will try hard to give some reassurance, although I do not think she can. However, if there is no such reassurance, I shall not be prepared to accept this statutory instrument today.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend’s excellent summary of where we are, I recall a couple of weeks ago in debate on an Oral Question in the Chamber suggesting to a Minister that the safest way would be for the Government to advise people not to buy package holidays that started on or after 30 March, because there is no compensation at the moment and the planes might not fly. The Minister thoroughly rejected that idea, as of course he would.
I hope that the Minister will respond to my noble friend’s reference to the comments in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report. I do not want to repeat them, but they are highly complex. For the CAA to have to give out route licences as well as operating licences looks to be a recipe for not having enough people and, as my noble friend said, for grounding. The same applies in respect of paragraph 16, so I shall not go on to that.
I am very disappointed with what is listed under “transport” in the political declaration that came out last week. As somebody else has said, it is a series of statements without verbs. It states that the parties intend to have a comprehensive air transport agreement. Well, they might do, but they have a lot of work to do. It refers to:
“Comparable market access for freight and passenger road transport”,
and acknowledges the intention of the UK and other member states,
“to make bilateral arrangements for cross-border rail”.
That is all on rail; there was nothing else on it at all. It also says that the maritime transport sector would be underpinned by,
“the applicable international legal framework, with appropriate arrangements for cooperation on … safety and security”.
When will we see the SIs covering these other sectors that we have not seen already? We will want to have a pretty detailed debate on them.
My noble friend mentioned safety and maintenance. They are extremely important. I will raise the question of standards across the various sectors. I wrote to the Minister a couple of weeks ago on railway standards. She kindly replied today so I have not been able to circulate her reply around, but I will do so. It exposes quite a significant difference of approach between different parts of the Department for Transport. The Minister’s response on railway standards is basically that, although the Government would like to be able to have their own standards for domestic traffic, they would do this only after substantial consultation with the industry. That sounds fine. The industry, which I will not quote now, is very much in favour of staying in the European railway agency because of the international need to have one common set of standards across the world for ease of manufacturing and exporting as much as anything.
The same applies to the road sector with automotive manufacturing. The CEO of the SMMT, Mike Hawes, gave some very interesting evidence to the House of Lords EU Internal Market Sub-Committee recently, saying:
“The major regulatory powerhouses tend to be the EU, especially around the environment but also safety, and the US”,
but they are very different and demonstrate very different approaches to policy, particularly on safety and the environment. He says that the EU is highly influential. The same comments could equally apply to air. I am interested to see what the sub-committee says when it reports.
However, last week the Secretary of State said when he gave evidence to the same sub-committee that breaking away from the EU will mean that the UK can rip up the rulebook and set its own standards for sectors such as rail. He sees no reason why the country should be made to abide by European regulations. He told the sub-committee that there was no need to remain part of the European rail regulatory body as the country’s rail systems vary in a vast number of ways from that of continental Europe, but the only example that he could give was station platform heights, which is just crazy. Station platforms for HS2 might need to be a little bit different, but there are many more stations that HS2 trains will go into that will not be affected. Presumably the Secretary of State has the same views on other sectors, such as road and air. Why does he have that view? The Minister’s statement now and her letter to me seem to have a much more balanced approach to standards, recognising that all the industry sectors in transport want to keep close alignment with the standards for very good safety, exporting and general manufacture reasons.
I also have one or two questions on the regulations themselves. The first is on the PSOs, which the Minister mentioned. It is good that they want to continue with the use of PSOs but will there be a similar need for regulations for other modes such as the bus, rail and maritime sectors in this country? If so, when will we see those and if not, why not?
Paragraph 2.5 of the draft Explanatory Memorandum, as the Minister said, says:
“The Regulation will now reflect … that”,
the legislation,
“applies only within the UK”.
How will air carriers from outside the UK be able to apply for licences to operate either into or within the UK? Who do they apply to and how long is it going to take to operate?
My noble friend talked about British Airways and IAG. I have a big problem with IAG because I tried to fly to Madrid on Friday and I was denied boarding at Heathrow—the wonderful new terminal 5. It was particularly galling when I had got up at 4 am to get to the airport. The point was that I could not check in on the web because I had bought the ticket through Iberia, which along with British Airways is part of AIG, and it said online, “Go to the British Airways check-in” because it was a British Airways flight. So I went there and it said, “Go back to Iberia”. I did that three or four times and swore, then I left it and went to the airport, where they said the flight was full. I said “Well, I’ve got a ticket”, so they sent me to the gate and it was still full. It is so nice in terminal 5 because you cannot come back from its satellites by train; you have to walk through a long tunnel.
I got the standard European compensation very quickly and was promised a refund of the fare, because the next flight would have been too late. I said, “Could you cancel my flight back in the evening?”. She said, “You’re on an Iberia flight—I can’t cancel it”. Now this is one company. I do not know whether the company will be based in London, Madrid or Timbuktu, but if it cannot get its act together when it is one of the biggest operators out of the UK, heaven help us. I certainly shall not fly with it in the run-up to Brexit, if I can avoid it. I hope that other people will not have the same problem and that it will be all right on the night.
Paragraph 7.7 of the draft memorandum refers to:
“The discretion given to EU Member States to regulate the distribution of traffic rights and impose measures”.
Who does that? It is yet more extra work, maybe for the CAA or the Government. Paragraph 7.9 refers to,
“a permit in order to perform aerial work”.
I find the definition of aerial work slightly confusing. Is it about running a drone, aerial photography or what? Again, that seems to be a bit more work for the CAA. Finally, the Committee may be glad to hear, paragraph 7.11 refers to when operating air services to the EU is revoked and says that,
“all air carriers operating international air services from the UK will require a route licence”.
That is what we said before; who is going to negotiate the route licences and operating licences?
As my noble friend said, this will end in chaos. We are pretty well there. There seems to be no agreement even between different parts of the Department for Transport and the Ministers, and I share my noble friend’s view that the only solution is to stay within the EU.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, when I put forward my Private Member’s Bill—excitingly entitled the Open Skies Agreement (Membership) Bill—immediately after the last election it never occurred to me that, nearly 18 months on, my concerns would still not have been answered. My concerns related to the international air agreements that make international air travel possible. We are members of those agreements by virtue of our membership of the EU. The sad, chaotic situation that the Government have got themselves into in their Brexit negotiations is threatening many people’s plans for the future and threatening companies’ ability to trade in the future, because they cannot rely on air services.
This SI in preparation for a no-deal scenario is far from reassuring. Rather, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, it reminds us all of what is at stake and how far we are from a solution. The report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee points to a number of unanswered questions. I am grateful to the committee, as I am sure we all are, for its work and I am glad that the Explanatory Memorandum has been updated. Being rather a keen student, I read the original—even the updated one has a lot of complexity and leaves a lot of questions unanswered, but the original one was not as good as it should have been. If there is no deal, UK and EU airlines will lose, as the Minister said, the automatic right to operate services between the UK and the EU without the need for permission from individual states.
The DfT has stated that it expects to grant permission for EU carriers to fly to and from UK airports and expects that to be reciprocated. That is a lot of expecting. What discussions have the Government already had? The Minister said that a lot of work has been done on it, but are we in a position where the whole thing could be more or less rubber-stamped if Brexit arrangements were sorted out? Would everything else slot into place quickly, or are we at an earlier stage in the process? If there is no deal, the Government have said that they intend to make bilateral agreements with individual states. These would obviously need to be in place by the end of March if there is to be no gap in services. It might not be technically possible to sign them until that day, but they have to be fully agreed and worked up. Specifically, what progress has been made so far in these draft agreements on developing the understanding with the other 27 EU countries? Are we negotiating with all the rest of the EU as individual states or just taking the most important ones in terms of the level of traffic?
These regulations are yet another example of the steady increase in the amount of bureaucracy that is being heaped on individuals and companies as a result of Brexit. Last week—or was it the week before?—we were here discussing hauliers permits, trailer registration and international driving permits. This week it is the requirement for UK licensed air carriers to have both a route licence and an operating licence to provide services outside the UK. Although the DfT has been proactive in contacting carriers about this and we can therefore, I assume, count on the fact that air carriers across the EU are aware of it, and although awareness is clearly higher than in the case of the hauliers, who are largely completely unaware of what is going to hit them very soon, nevertheless it puts an additional burden on the airlines, as well as putting further responsibility on the CAA. I have remarked here before on the burden on the CAA of a wide group of responsibilities. We expect it to deal with space travel and failing airlines and to modernise airspace, and now we are expecting it to provide additional licences for air carriers. Can the Minister give us details of the additional resources being allocated to the CAA to deal with the more complex air services market that we will now face?
If there is no deal, all foreign carriers, including those from the EEA, will have to apply for a foreign carrier permit. Already the CAA processes thousands a year, but clearly it will have to process very many more in the future. What happens if a carrier does not apply? The DfT says that it expects EU carriers to make applications in good time, so what is the timescale? Using a parallel with haulage permits again, we discussed this not much more than a week ago. The hauliers have to apply by the end of the month, or certainly the beginning of December, in order to have a hope of getting their permits by January. There is a huge rush in that case. Is the system similar for the CAA? Is it fully geared up and are the airlines all ready to apply?
Lord Berkeley
Does the noble Baroness agree that the system for selecting who gets the permits for haulage that we discussed, as she says, a couple of weeks ago involves either drawing names out of a hat or seeing which haulier provides the best value for money for the country? Does she see that as an appropriate way of dealing with these air licences?
Baroness Randerson
My disappointment with the SI that we had a week or so ago was definitely with the lack of certainty about which criteria the Government would use. The Government adroitly managed to give themselves the broadest possible set of criteria and we are no nearer knowing how exactly those permits will be applied. The industry is worried as a result.
There has already been a degree of reorganisation within the aviation industry as airlines previously registered in the UK have moved abroad for their registration, with the inevitable drift of at least some jobs abroad. It is important that we bear in mind that this additional bureaucracy—the additional requirements as a result of Brexit—will put our expertise in such an important aviation market at a disadvantage.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised the issue of wet leasing, which, as the Minister explained, is when an airline releases an aircraft and its crew and so on. This is usually done at busy times or in exceptional circumstances. If the aircraft is not registered in the UK, the airline has to satisfy certain safety criteria. The airlines are concerned that this should be the subject of a reciprocal agreement with EU countries. Can the Minister explain what progress the Department for Transport has made in its discussions on this?
Public service obligations apply when a service would be uneconomical but is needed for economic and social reasons. They usually apply to far-flung places such as the Scottish islands. In future, such services could be operated by UK carriers and by others with cabotage rights—although, to be honest, that would be unlikely with no deal. These are sensitive and complex issues of state aid. As someone from Wales, I know that there has been a long debate on why rights are granted on some Scottish routes but similar rights were not granted in Wales. Could the Minister give us a little more detail on this?
State aid rules were previously adjudicated by the European Commission. This is a complex and controversial area, but the distance of the European Commission in power terms from the decisions that it made neutralised the issue to a large extent. Those powers will now be given to the CMA. What resources will it be given to deal with this? I also warn the Minister that those things are likely to become much more sharply controversial.
Paragraph 7.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum deals with the allocation of scarce capacity. The 2007 regulations dealt with air service agreements between EU members and third countries. Scarce capacity occurs when there are restrictions on the frequency of flights. The Explanatory Memorandum includes a political declaration that the UK Government will always seek to lift or remove such a cap but will hold a hearing to allocate frequencies if that is not possible. What is the legal force of that statement? It seems that it is simply a political declaration. It is a statement of intent by the current Government, but they cannot bind their successors. I would like some clarification on that.
Finally, it would be helpful, as we sit here week after week wading our way through dozens of these SIs, to be able to see the full context of where we are on air services. Maybe the Minister can tell us what other air services SIs we are waiting for.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and content of these regulations, which set out the contingency measures for the licensing and oversight of flights to and from the UK in the event of no deal with the European Union. UK carriers will require a route licence, as well as the operating licence that is currently required under EU law, for operations beyond the UK. Air carriers from the European Economic Area will also have to obtain a foreign carrier permit to operate in the UK.
In the event of there being no deal with the European Union, UK and EU airlines will no longer have the automatic right to operate air services between the UK and the EU without the need for advance permission from individual states. In this scenario, the Government expect to grant permission to EU carriers to operate to UK airports and for this to be reciprocated by EU states granting permission to UK air carriers to operate to points in the EU. Failing such a multilateral agreement, the Government’s intention would be to seek bilateral arrangements with individual states. I know that this point has been raised before but I raise it again: why do the Government believe that such bilateral arrangements between the UK and individual states could actually be put in place in the short time left even between now and 29 March 2019, let alone between early or mid-December and the end of March 2019?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. A wide array of issues has been raised but I will limit my responses to those directly related to the SI that we are discussing, given the time and the number of questions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that issues around aviation and Brexit are incredibly important and it is important that we get them right. However, this SI is not about our negotiating position, which is being discussed extensively elsewhere; it is purely correcting the regulations to ensure that we have a functioning statute book should we leave with no deal in March.
I am not quite sure that I agree that this is one of the most devastating reports from the SLSC that I have seen. The committee often quite rightly draws SIs to the special attention of the House, and I and the rest of the Government are very grateful for its work on that. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for reading out the BBC report, which is quite right in its facts. I hope I can provide some further assurances as we go through the questions.
I turn to the points raised by the SLSC, to which many noble Lords referred in their questions. I shall take each point in turn. First, on how, in the event of no deal, we will ensure that bilateral arrangements are in place to ensure that there is no gap—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is quite right to point out that it is important that there is no gap—we remain confident that we will get an agreement on a broader deal. However, if that is not possible, our first option will be to consider a multilateral agreement between the UK and the EU. The Commission has also proposed this, with suggestions for a bare-bones agreement in the event of no deal. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is right to point out that the statement from the Commission on 13 November is its latest position on that in the negotiation, and it will form part of the conversation as we go through the detail. In the meantime, in the event of no broader deal and no multilateral deal, both of which we fully expect to reach, we have also reached out to counterparts in individual member states to reach a shared understanding on a bilateral basis of what arrangements would apply between our two countries.
The second issue specifically raised by the SLSC is the resources that the Government are providing to the CAA. The CAA is already the licensing authority for UK airlines. It provides regulatory oversight and has the resources in place to ensure that it can continue to do so. All the holders of type A operating licences—that is, operators of aircraft with more than 20 seats—already have a route licence. All the holders of type B operating licences have been individually contacted and invited to apply for a route licence free of charge, as I mentioned before, from the CAA. Some of those companies operate exclusively domestic services and do not need a route licence, but we are confident that those that need a route licence will be issued one.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I have just realised the implications of something the Minister said a couple of minutes ago. As well as a multilateral agreement with the EU, we are negotiating bilateral agreements with all 27 countries—is that right? Could the Minister explain if this is what we are doing?
Baroness Sugg
As I said, our firm preference is for a wider deal, providing for a comprehensive air services agreement with the EU. Failing that, we have the option of a multilateral agreement and, failing that, bilateral agreements with member states. As the noble Lord would expect, we are speaking to member states about a wide range of issues.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Is a Minister—either the noble Baroness or one of her colleagues—or some of the officials flying out to these countries to discuss it, or are they coming here? An astonishing range of what I hope is unnecessary activity is taking place. Could the Minister confirm that that is exactly what is happening?
Baroness Sugg
As I said, to make responsible preparations it is important to consider all the different options available to us. Of course we are having conversations with the Commission and the member states about a wide range of issues. I am not able to give further detailed information at this moment but our preference is very strongly for a broader deal which will provide a liberalised agreement with the EU, though there are other options available to us. I hope this provides reassurance that we will continue to see flights between the UK and the EU. We will continue to work towards this as we move towards exit day.
Lord Rosser
On bilateral discussions, the European Commission document that we have had—which I appreciate extends across the whole gamut and does not apply just to aviation—says:
“In the same spirit, Member States should refrain from bilateral discussions and agreements with the United Kingdom, which would undermine EU unity”.
It may be that this particular sentence does not apply to air transport. Is it then the case that we are having bilateral discussions in the apparent teeth of opposition from the European Union?
Baroness Sugg
Our first point of contact is with the EU Commission to agree a wider deal. It has been widely reported that the Secretary of State has written to other member states to discuss the potential bilateral agreements. We are working very hard to get that wider deal. That is our focus but, should that not happen, then of course we are making sure that we are as prepared as possible to ensure that we do not have any disruption in services come 29 March.
Baroness Randerson
I made the point that our worldwide agreements on air travel are made as a member of the EU. So we have to be convinced that we will have an agreement with the rest of the world beyond the EU by the end of March. How are these negotiations going, for example with the USA?
Baroness Sugg
I will come on to that. As the UK, we have 111 bilateral agreements with the rest of the world in our own right. The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that we have bilateral agreements through our membership of the EU.
The next issue raised was on the basis of our expectations, how we are working with EU carriers to make sure that we have no gap in services and the assurances we can give that the CAA has the capacity and resources in place. Our expectation is that EEA carriers would require advance permission before operating to the UK. This is founded on international law. I already spoke about the 1944 Chicago Convention and that that treaty expressly prohibits scheduled international air services.
In anticipation of the increased volume of permit applications from EEA carriers, the CAA has already upgraded its systems for permit processing and recruited additional staff. All scheduled permits are issued on a seasonal basis. The next summer season starts on 31 March 2019, so there is a predictable increase in workload for this. We are expecting 100 to 150 seasonal permit applications. The CAA currently issues around 3,000 ad hoc permits a year. It is preparing to be able to process at least double that if necessary.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
How many additional staff have already been recruited to the CAA and how many more does the Minister expect to be recruited?
Baroness Sugg
I do not have those specific numbers, but we are reassured that the CAA is fully prepared. We have already allocated it some funding from the Treasury to ensure that it has the proper resources in place.
Lord Rosser
Before the Minister sits down, if the document that we have had from the European Commission, specifically the section on air transport, represents the Commission’s stance in the event of no deal—as I understand it, the Minister said we were in discussions with it—what is the latest date by which something has to be agreed so that it is effective from 29 March? Presumably what has been listed here by the European Commission as its position cannot be agreed the day before, and presumably it has to be agreed before then to come into operation on 29 March. So what is the latest date, realistically, by which something has to be agreed?
Baroness Sugg
The noble Lord will know that there are many positions on the negotiations. As I said, that is the Commission’s latest position. We are continuing to negotiate with it on the broader future partnership arrangements. Alongside that, we are of course talking to it about no deal too. There is no specific latest date. That is why we need to do this no-deal preparation, so that if it goes close to the date of exit the industry understands what the alternatives are. We are very keen to provide industry with certainty as early as possible.
We have the European Council on Sunday and I expect that there will be an outcome from that. We will then look at what next steps need to be taken. We are very hopeful that the deal is done and will be agreed by Parliament so that we reach our implementation period on 29 March and the industry has that certainty. Should that not be the case, we will of course continue the discussions with the Commission to provide certainty as early as we possibly can. I am very aware, in my many meetings with the aviation sector, of the importance of providing that certainty. That is what this no-deal planning and our continued negotiations with the Commission are about. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
The Question is that this Motion be agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I must remind the Grand Committee that the Motion before it is to consider—I emphasise the word “consider”—the regulations, not to approve them. Whatever happens here in the Grand Committee, the Government will need to table an approval Motion in the Chamber, where any Member concerned can properly register disagreement. I also remind the Grand Committee, as contained in paragraph 3.13 on page 29 of the Companion, that we cannot have a vote in Grand Committee. With that in mind, I put the Question again. The Question is that this Motion—I emphasise, the Motion being to consider the regulations—be agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I am sorry, my Lords, we cannot have a vote within the Grand Committee. The Motion is therefore negatived.
Textile Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Textile Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, as the talks progress, we have now agreed in principle the terms of the UK’s orderly exit from the EU, as set out in the withdrawal agreement. We have also agreed the broad terms of our future relationship, as set out in the outline political declaration. This puts us close to a Brexit deal that takes back control of our borders, our laws and our money while protecting jobs, security and the integrity of the UK. However, it is our duty as a responsible Government to prepare for all eventualities, including no deal. This instrument is part of that contingency planning.
It is essential to ensure that our consumer legislation continues to function effectively after exit day. Maintaining a comprehensive framework of consumer rights is crucial for prosperity. Household expenditure accounts for around 60% of the UK’s economy. In 2016, retail sales stood at £800 million for textiles stores and £40 billion for clothing stores. Confident consumers help to raise productivity and deliver an economy that works for everyone.
These regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and were laid in draft before the House on 10 October. They amend EU regulation 1007/2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking. The EU regulation prescribes the labelling or marking that must be applied to textile products to inform consumers of the products’ textile fibre composition and the presence of non-textile parts of animal origin, such as fur. It also empowers the EU Commission to approve new textile fibre names and modify technical provisions, such as testing methods. The EU regulation also modifies the textile product regulations 2012, which set out enforcement provisions for the EU regulation in the UK.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction and for explaining the regulations so well. In light of the fact that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has not drawn attention to any matter relating to these regulations for the House to give them special attention, I agree that it is appropriate to consider them in Grand Committee.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend in his introduction of this important legislation. As someone whose family was in the textile business for many years, I know that the definition of what makes up the product is hugely important. Labelling is key for people when they want to buy, particularly those with allergies. With modern technology, such a cross-section of mixtures is used in clothing, and so I welcome the statutory instrument. In the old days, there was botany wool, lamb’s wool, Angora and cashmere and that was it. Today, a multiplicity of ingredients is used in textile production.
I thank the Minister for introducing the instrument. I understand that it does not create extra responsibilities or burdens for the industry, but will allow us to move forward. In future, labelling will be in English, which is an additional bonus to those of us who used to export 50% of what we produced. I have great pleasure in supporting this statutory instrument.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is right to point out what he did. When giving us his blessing to consider this, he said that it seems relatively uncontroversial, and I have only one comment and one detailed question.
The comment is about labelling. The Minister rightly pointed out that there will be great similarities at the point of exit between regulation on this side and regulation in the EU 27. However, that will not remain the case for long. Divergence of regulation will start to change the labelling needs on this side versus that side. I point out that, whether we crash out or leave with a deal, that divergence will happen, suddenly or over time. It will mean that the label of a garment here and a similar garment in, say, France, will inevitably diverge. That is a cost, and one that over time will be borne by consumers in this country. It should be remembered clearly that, like many other measures we will see in SIs, in this Room and others, we are putting the cost on consumers.
My question relates to paragraph 7.10 and the approval of fibres. I should perhaps know the answer to this question, but clearly the Secretary of State is a busy person and will not personally deal with a new generic fibre name. Therefore, which agency in BEIS will deal with this? Is that agency being prepared for the arrival of this new process? What will happen to existing fibres that have been accepted within the European context? Will they be transferred to this agency overnight in the event of a crash, or will they be somehow left over the water and administered still by the European Union? What is the process by which these fibres are recognised and administered, and how are the tests validated? Who will do that and where will it happen? What is the scale of this operation? Is it three people in an office somewhere, 300 people or 3,000 people? I have no sense of the scale.
With those reservations, I should like to hear what the Minister says.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an informative little debate, blessed as we are by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to proceed in a relatively calm and considered way. I hope we can move smoothly to a conclusion.
The other two speakers have been supportive of the statutory instrument and I am not going to object to it either. The trouble with these things is that, however simple they appear on the surface, they raise questions in your mind. We have already heard examples of a couple of things that need to be responded to. I do not think that was done in any way to negate what is proposed, but it raises wider questions that we perhaps might return to at some future date.
I want to ask three or four questions of the Minister, and I am happy to receive the answers in writing if they are not available today. Most relate to the Explanatory Memorandum, which I thought was clear and good, and I congratulate the department on the way it has been produced.
I should just say that this is the first time I have dealt with an EU exit regulation. I think it might be sensible to lay down a few ground rules so that we can do it better as we go forward. There are several hundred still to come, or more, and, as others have said, if the department is at any point ready to define the total, that would be helpful for overall planning. For instance, I do not think it is necessary to circulate the annexe statements under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Part 1 table of statements—a reference to that could perfectly easily be put somewhere and we could look it up for ourselves. That would save paper, complications and reading time.
Secondly, the department started—I do not know whether it is continuing—to write to Front-Bench spokespersons with details of certain SIs that were due to come forward, perhaps if there was something a bit more tricky or interesting about them. The trouble is, the letters became scattergun. I have had four. My noble friend Lord Grantchester has had six. Others may have had other numbers—I have not had time to ask round. If they are going to come at all, it would be helpful if they came to me as the leader of the group and I could disperse them. If they are not going to come, fine; that was a nice little flurry and it was very nice to get them, but the moment has passed.
My detailed points mainly concern the memorandum. Paragraph 7.6 says:
“The Textile Products Regulations provide sanctions and enforcement powers for UK market surveillance authorities (local authorities’ Trading Standards departments) to ensure compliance with the EU regulation”.
Of course, the burden here falls on trading standards departments, which, as we all know, have been suffering because of reductions in funding from local authorities. While the department, which has allocated additional responsibilities to trading standards departments, has also notionally allocated money to them, I worry that trading standards as a group is being asked to carry the burden of a lot of things which nobody has really costed or understood whether it is able to carry out the work. Have any discussions taken place with local authorities on this? For example, has a lead local authority taken responsibility for this, as is the case in some areas? Has it been discussed with the Trading Standards Institute? What is the rough estimate of the additional cost that might be involved?
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned paragraph 7.10 and issues around that. I have a similar point in relation to the functions of the Secretary of State. There are agencies currently in play which do work on the testing of products and related issues. Will the Office for Product Safety and Standards, which has responsibility for some of these issues, be involved in this process? The idea that the department is just going to absorb all this work seems slightly odd. Could a bit more clarity be provided on that?
The question of cost flows into the question of whether an impact statement is to be prepared. There is a general statement that if the costs are less than £5 million annually it will not be done. Changing over the whole system for all clothing manufacture in this country from one which was taking a template organised by the EU to a new one that takes its template from the UK will involve transitional costs. I would be very surprised if those were not close to £5 million. There is no particular point that I want to make here. I just wondered, as the department would have had to make a rough calculation of what the costs would be to invoke the de minimis threshold, whether the Minister might share it with us just so that we can have confidence that it is being done properly.
My other points are more generic. First, this is being done as a UK instrument and applies from its implementation date to the United Kingdom, yet there are within the United Kingdom a number of very specialist manufacturers of various textiles—I think of Harris tweed and things that relate to the particular wool that comes from Welsh sheep; Northern Ireland has its own distinctive history in linen. Why is this a reserved issue? If it is to be a reserved issue, what arrangements have been put in place to ensure that the devolved Administrations are involved in the process? The question is probably easily answered but raises a bigger point about how we might think about this in future, particularly as the Government have conceded on geographical indicators—GIs—and that therefore there will be quite a number of these, not necessarily related to textiles.
Secondly, the Explanatory Memorandum says that although no formal consultation was undertaken prior to the instrument being laid,
“discussions were held with industry experts and business representative groups”.
A little note about who was consulted and roughly on what areas would be helpful. I look forward to that confirmation from the Minister in due course.
Lord Henley
My Lords, like other speakers, I offer thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his blessing of this statutory instrument. We are grateful for that. I will deal with most of the points, but it might be that on one or two I need to write to noble Lords with further detail.
Like my noble friend Lady Byford, I understand the extreme importance of labelling, particularly for those with allergies but also those who have other concerns. My noble friend will be aware that, only recently, my noble friend Lord Gardiner and I gave evidence to the EFRA Committee in another place on fake fur and real fur. Some older Members of the Committee may remember a time when people would try to sell fake fur as real fur, whereas it is now the other way round. Given how animals are farmed in other parts of the world, real fur can often be a lot cheaper than fake fur, and in trying to buy fake fur a lot of people do not want to buy real fur. The point I was coming to is that we are currently bound by EU rules on labelling. Both my noble friend Lord Gardiner and I felt that the existing labelling of fur and fake fur was not necessarily quite as clear for the consumer as it should be, which sometimes led to individuals buying real fur or objects with a tiny portion of real fur in the trimming when they did not wish so to do. I agree with my noble friend that labelling is important but I also emphasise that these regulations are there only for a no-deal scenario, so that should there be no deal—I am confident that there will be—we can be in a position to make sure that we have the right arrangements in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked who would exercise the Secretary of State’s powers when it came to enforcement. It is an important matter for local authorities and trading standards, but I can give an assurance that we provide funding to National Trading Standards of around £13 million a year, with £1.2 million a year for Trading Standards Scotland, for the co-ordination of regional and national trading standards in England, Wales and Scotland. I will have to write to him on why this is not a devolved matter. I still find it, as no doubt will the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, extraordinarily confusing as to which matters are devolved and which are not, as was the case when we recently debated the changing of clocks, which seems to be devolved in Northern Ireland but not in Scotland or Wales.
Lord Fox
I am slightly confused. For example, if I have invented a fabulous new fibre and wish to start using it in one of the Minister’s sweaters, do I pop into Hereford Town Hall and look for the trading standards person there? How do I know where to go? Who is the agent or person that I go to?
Lord Henley
I was trying to make it clear that local authorities deal with the enforcement. The noble Lord is asking about the labelling of his product. Perhaps I may write to him in great detail to make sure that I get exactly right who is exercising the powers of the Secretary of State and that he has the answer he seeks.
Lord Fox
While the Minister is writing, will he also explain what happens to existing fibres that are currently on a European ticket, so to speak? If they come in on your labels and have been improved in the European context, is jurisdiction over those fibres passed en bloc to that agency? What is the process, since the transfer of existing fibres to a new UK agency for their management does not appear to be allowed for in this SI?
Lord Henley
I will write in greater detail to the noble Lord, just to make sure that he is absolutely clear. In passing, on the question of correspondence, I give an assurance that from now on I will send all letters from my department on matters relating to SIs to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Fox: I will copy letters to one and the other. I am sorry if he has been confused: on some occasions I have written to the noble Lord and on others to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I shall inform my office that in future it will be entirely himself. If the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, would like to receive those letters, I will send them to him too.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
In no sense was any blame to attach to the Minister personally: in fact, several of the ones that went to my noble friend Lord Grantchester were from his colleague Kelly Tolhurst. I got a couple from the Minister himself and my poor noble friend Lord McNicol got none.
Lord Henley
The poor noble Lord, Lord McNicol, got none, but I think I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, on something. Anyway, between myself and my honourable friend Kelly Tolhurst we will look at our entire system and make sure that there is one recipient of all letters on the Official Opposition Front Bench and that similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will be a recipient of all other letters.
I move on to the question of the impact—the cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, put it. After exit, the responsibilities for UK manufacturers or a business sourcing textile products from UK manufacturers, or importing them from outside, will remain the same; it will be the same for manufacturers. Anyone importing products from manufacturers in the UK would be putting a textile product on the market and so would become responsible for ensuring that it contains the appropriate label or marking and that it is accurate according to the retained EU regulation. The practical impact of this will be limited. I think any impact on business will fall far below £5 million annually and, as a result, we do not believe that a full impact assessment is necessary.
On exit day, UK and EU labelling laws will remain highly aligned. Textile products imported from the EU will therefore be compliant with the shared requirements and the saved EU regulation does not mandate any costly technical testing or the production of documentation as proof of compliance. Similarly, there would be no administrative costs at the border to demonstrate compliance. Many businesses already undertake compliance activities as part of their due diligence programmes. That includes asking for proof of fibre composition or procuring their own fibre composition test. As a result, it is unlikely that businesses would need to put in place additional checks to demonstrate compliance with the saved EU regulation. The Government will, in due course, provide further guidance to businesses to ensure that they have understood the requirements of the saved EU regulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about applications for new fibres. Businesses wishing to introduce a new textile fibre name or manufacturing tolerance will be able to make this application to the Secretary of State. The Government will, in due course, publish further guidance, including the process by which the Secretary of State will assess the various applications. Lastly, I was asked: will businesses have to apply to both the United Kingdom and the European Commission to have a new fibre name approved for both UK and EU markets? Yes, in a no-deal scenario, it will no longer be appropriate for the European Commission to approve new textile fibres which can be made available on the EU market and therefore they will have to apply to both. I hope that will not be an onerous burden.
As I said, I remain optimistic, as always, that we will reach an agreement with the European Union, but it is important and prudent to have a regulatory and legislative framework in place should we leave without a deal. That is entirely what this instrument ensures.
Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 22 October 2018, be considered.
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. Obviously, the best outcome for the UK is to leave the EU with a good deal. If a deal—and therefore a withdrawal agreement—is reached, 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, which is what we are doing in bringing this instrument before this Committee today
The Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts Regulations 2010 transposed the 2008 EU directive on timeshare and long-term holiday products into UK law. The 2010 regulations improved consumer protection for those investing in timeshares across EEA states, aiming to improve consumer confidence in the industry. That was done through a number of new consumer rights and obligations on traders. Under the new rules, a consumer considering the purchase of a timeshare had always to be made aware of the key information in a standardised form in the language of the EEA state of which they were a national or resident. That new regime also extended consumer protections to a much broader range of holiday-related services, including resale, exchange and long-term holiday contracts, as well as timeshare contracts. These services are all characterised by long-term commitments of significant financial risks for consumers.
If approved, the regulations will make minor and technical amendments to the existing timeshare regulations to correct deficiencies that would arise from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The draft regulations now put before the Committee make amendments to references to EEA states and language requirements. These include amendments which ensure that contracts governed by UK law are still protected when the UK is no longer a member state of the EEA. They widen the scope of the regulations so that certain contracts governed by the law of an EEA state will now be subject to the same regime as contracts governed by the law of third countries. In addition, language requirements are amended so that key information must be provided in English.
In practice, most of the protections of the timeshare regulations 2010 will continue as currently, except that some contracts applying the law of an EEA state will now be subject to the same requirements as contracts applying the law of a third country.
Principally, this instrument saves the current regulations, so that they remain the same for UK consumers buying timeshares and other long-term holiday products in the UK and from UK companies where contracts are governed by the law of the United Kingdom.
Where UK consumers buy certain timeshares and other long-term holiday products governed by the law of EEA states, these contracts will now be treated in the same way as contracts applying the law of a third country, as EEA states will now be third countries.
The new regime will generally not cover contracts where UK consumers purchase timeshares and other long-term holiday products from EEA traders when they are in that EEA state. These contracts will be generally be subject to the laws of that EEA state. As UK consumers will no longer be citizens of an EEA state, then that EEA state’s law may not apply in the same way to UK consumers as it did previously.
Additional amendments have been made to correct legal deficiencies and substitute references to the EEA, including EEA states. This will ensure legal operability of the legislation on day one of exit.
Finally, the regulations will include provisions for the contract and mandatory pre-contractual information to be provided in English, as well as allowing for them to be in another language, whether or not it is an official language of an EEA state.
A comprehensive assessment of the impact of the instrument has been undertaken. The conclusions were that as this instrument does not represent a substantial policy change, it is expected to result in little or no wider impacts or transfers. The instrument is also expected to have minimal effect on UK businesses, UK consumers, the wider UK society, the environment and the rest of the UK economy. This is because, as I said, the effect of these regulations for timeshare and other long-term holiday products will generally remain constant.
In conclusion, the regulations are a sensible and necessary use of the powers of the withdrawal Act that will ensure that our consumer law continues to function effectively on exit day, and I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this appears to be so uncontroversial that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has left the room. However, I have a couple of questions. The Minister has done a great job in describing the limitations as well as the extent of this move. It is of course the limitations that concern me. One of the main ways in which timeshares, particularly non-British timeshares, are sold is in situ. In other words, people are sold to by people who literally come up to them in the street. It will not be clear to those individuals, who have been used to the process of being sold to and, in some cases, buying such products that the legal basis on which they are buying property will change. No longer will the contract be unified across the state. They will have bought a property in a foreign legal environment.
I make the same point as I made on the previous SI. That foreign legal environment will gradually diverge. It will diverge slowly or quickly, but it will change. It is clear that if that is how it goes, the Government and the industry have to work very hard to explain the legal complications that can arise from buying a property from a EU 27-based seller in an EU 27 country. It is not clear to me what is the legal redress if you buy a property from a UK-based seller in an EU 27 country. My suspicion is that it probably depends. That is another point on which serious information will be required to avoid people being mis-sold on that basis.
The Minister did not to any great extent address resale. Where does this leave the UK owner of an EU timeshare bought from an EU seller who comes to resell? It does not appear to me that this SI addresses this issue at all, but it is of great concern. Say the Minister had, in a fit of excitement, bought a timeshare on a golf course in the Algarve several years ago. He is shaking his head, but perhaps he should have done that—he would be relaxed. If he had bought that timeshare from a Portuguese seller, where does this leave him when it comes to the contract and process of resale? Where is the court of redress? Where is the process?
The SI is good as far as it goes, but it does not address the key consumer issues. Once again, it is consumers who will suffer. Whether we crash out or have a deal, the divergence will potentially create a significant downside for consumers. I would like to hear the Minister’s view on that.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, this is one of the more straightforward regulations. We can see that by the fact that we have lost my noble friend Lord Foulkes from our discussion. As was touched on, the main aim is to change references to “the EEA” to “the UK”, and similar changes in language from “official language of an EEA state” to “English”. At this stage, I cannot find much of substance to disagree with. However, I am sure my shadow BEIS colleagues may have some points to raise when this is discussed in the other place. Like my noble friend Lord Foulkes before me, I have just a couple of questions for the Minister.
First, much of the instrument deals only with replacing European references with domestic alternatives. However, the regulations will also ensure that contracts governed by the law of an EEA state will be treated in the same way as contracts governed by the law of non-EEA third countries. Did the Government consider any other option for EEA contracts?
Secondly, prior to the publication of this instrument, the Government chose not to carry out a consultation. This seems fair, considering the volume of secondary legislation and the relatively minor impact that this will have. However, it could be expected that the Government will have held informal conversations with those affected by the regulations. Will the Minister explain whether any such discussions, with industry or others, have taken place?
Thirdly, the Explanatory Memorandum claims that there is no impact on UK businesses. However, as a result of this instrument, businesses dealing with timeshares will surely have to acquaint themselves with the new regulations. Does the Minister not agree that, however minor, there will be some necessary adjustments for business to make?
Finally, on a similar note, does the Minister agree, like me, with the comments of his colleague the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? This morning, she said that the UK will not be leaving on a no-deal Brexit as there is no majority in the other place for that to pass.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that we had a referendum a couple of years ago and we agreed that we were leaving the EU. That was the manifesto that both the party I represent and the noble Lord’s party went to the country on in 2017. We are leaving the EU. It depends on what terms. These regulations are about dealing with the question: what will happen if there is no deal? We hope there will be a deal but if there is no deal, we want to make sure that the proper protections are there.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked a number of questions which went slightly wider than the regulations in front of us. The important thing to say to anyone who is thinking of buying a timeshare, whether in this country or another, is that whatever they do, they must take all the proper legal advice. I have no plans, when I walk round a golf course on the Algarve—which I have never done and have no intention of doing—to buy a timeshare, but there are people who want to buy timeshares and they serve a purpose. Whatever they do, the important thing is to make sure that they are getting the right advice, either in this country, if they are buying it here, or in another country. I think we would all agree on that point. Where people have had problems, it is very often because they have bought in the manner that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seemed to be suggesting—someone comes up to them while they are on holiday and makes this suggestion.
Now that we are leaving, what protection will UK consumers have when buying timeshares in Portugal? Obviously, it will depend on where the consumer bought the timeshare. UK consumers who buy timeshares under UK law will be covered by the protections in the existing timeshare regime. If they are buying timeshares in Portugal from Portuguese traders, they will generally be subject to Portuguese law and the protections that that member state extends to non-EEA nationals. Consumers will be encouraged to understand the specific conditions of the contract and to take all appropriate advice.
The noble Lord also asked: how do we prevent people being misled? Obviously, I share his concern for vulnerable consumers who are unfairly targeted by manipulative and misleading sales tactics in many industries, but particularly here. I believe that the current timeshare regime, reviewed and updated by the 2010 regulations, provides adequate protections for timeshare consumers. The regulations require that clear and comprehensive information is provided to the consumer before any contract is agreed; that information on termination must also form part of the contract; that timeshare buyers also have the option to change their mind within two weeks of signing a contract, during which no money can be taken; and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, asked whether it was possible that there would be further changes. He will be aware that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act does not give us the powers to create any legislation or substantially change any retained EU legislation. The changes that this instrument would bring into effect are made in exercise of those powers, to remedy deficiencies in retained law and not to change the effect of retained law. But we know that many people have concerns about some of the protections. I can give an assurance to the noble Lord that my right honourable friend and others will always keep these matters under review if we feel that there are not the appropriate protections. This will always be a concern. The Government would act if necessary.
Lord Henley
I agree that resale is a vital point, because when one buys a timeshare one usually feels that one has an asset which, if it is to have value, should be able to be sold.
I was asked where the court of redress would be. If it was a Portuguese contract, the court of redress would be in the Portuguese courts. Perhaps I may double-check what the precise position would be in respect of something sold here that is in another place. If the noble Lord comes to a deal while sauntering around a golf course in the Algarve—so that is just a deal that he has made in Portugal—it is quite clear that the Portuguese courts will deal with it, but I had better write to the noble Lord on what the position would if he bought it here and it was in that EEA state to make sure that I get it absolutely correct.
I hope that that explanation is sufficient. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has now felt that he can depart, so I hope that we can move on.
Infrastructure Planning (Water Resources) (England) Order 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Infrastructure Planning (Water Resources) (England) Order 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of the order is to amend the Planning Act 2008. The Act sets out a streamlined national planning process for infrastructure projects which are “nationally significant”. If a project meets certain thresholds set out in the Act, it will be considered under it, with the Secretary of State as the decision-maker.
This order will change the thresholds under which reservoirs, dams and water transfers will qualify as “nationally significant”.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Can the Minister explain what the driver is behind this order? Who is pushing for it?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the Government are pushing for it on behalf of the nation in so far as we undertook consultation. With climate change and population growth, we need to prepare. We wish to place a greater emphasis on the environment and therefore to deal with overabstractions. We need to find ways of having sufficient water, given the projections of an increase in population. This is about planning. We do not expect the projects to which this measure will apply to take place in the next five years; this is about forward planning. We think that these changes will probably embrace about six projects in England. The noble Lord asked who is driving this. We need to take a public responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient water for the nation. Yes, we should cut consumption where we can, but, because of population growth and climate change, we are bringing forward this measure now as part of our forward planning. It will involve public engagement, but that is the background to it.
On conclusions and criteria, we needed to make sure that we consulted, so we consulted on our initial proposals last November and then held a more detailed consultation in April. There was broad support for our approach from a range of stakeholders who responded, including water companies, environmental groups and other interested groups.
In reaching a conclusion on the new thresholds, we considered a number of factors, including the physical size of the infrastructure in question, the size of population that could be served by its output and the major infrastructure the Government anticipate will be needed in future. This is likely to require developers to engage with a number of planning authorities and other regulatory regimes. We also wished to move to a level playing field so that different water resource schemes are all required to meet thresholds that are as consistent as possible to qualify for consideration under the Act. This should help avoid developers favouring one scheme over another just because they prefer one planning route over another.
In making these amendments, we are introducing a consistent metric to measure the output of each infrastructure type. This metric is known as deployable output and is commonly used by the water industry for water resource planning. Deployable output is an annual average measure of the number of litres of water a particular piece of infrastructure can be expected to produce in a day under drought conditions. We concluded that a project expected to have a deployable output of 80 million litres per day—a level that could serve a population of around half a million people—is a nationally significant infrastructure project.
As explained, the order will amend qualifying thresholds for two existing infrastructure types mentioned in the Act and introduce a third—desalination plants. In the case of water transfers, this order would reduce the size of the threshold that projects would need to meet to qualify as nationally significant in line with the number of people served—that is, 80 million litres per day.
There will now be two ways for reservoirs to qualify for the streamlined planning process under the Act. The order would introduce a deployable output measure, consistent with transfers. However, we have chosen to retain a measure based on physical volume, recognising that the size of reservoirs matters. This is not just because of the impact they can have on neighbouring communities, but because a large reservoir takes a long time to drain down. Thus, with a relatively low deployable output, it can be an important part of overall water resource resilience. We have increased the volume for reservoirs to qualify under the Act from 10 million cubic metres to 30 million cubic metres.
We have also introduced desalination plants as a new infrastructure type. Consistent with the other infrastructure types, if the deployable output of a given desalination plant is expected to exceed 80 million litres per day, the project can be considered under the Act.
While the national level is the right one for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure, it is vital that those communities directly affected have their say and are heard in the decision-making process. The Act and regulations made under it set out the consultation requirements for development consent order applications. I can assure your Lordships that extensive pre-application consultation and engagement with those affected by the proposals will need to be undertaken by applicants. Furthermore, members of the public can participate in the examination process by registering their interest, thus ensuring that local views can be heard.
The main benefit to the developer of projects meeting the criteria in the Act is that they will face a less complex, consenting process with quicker decision-making. A number of consent requirements, such as planning permission, listed buildings consent and scheduled ancient monument consent, are replaced by a single consent, issued by the Secretary of State, following advice provided by the Planning Inspectorate.
It is the Government’s intention to designate a national policy statement for water resources infrastructure under the Planning Act. This policy statement will summarise government policy—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, it has just been drawn to my attention that a Division has been called in the Chamber. Since we have a few seconds to go until 6.25 pm, the Grand Committee therefore stands adjourned until 6.35 pm.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is the Government’s intention to designate a national policy statement for water resources infrastructure under the Planning Act. This policy statement will summarise government policy on water resource infrastructure, including setting out the need for nationally significant infrastructure. It will make clear what the Government expect a planning inspector to take into account when examining an application. We plan to lay a draft of this in Parliament by the end of the year. I look forward to engaging with your Lordships on this in more detail next year.
The amendments in this order are part of how we make sure we have enough water now, and in the future. Population growth, climate change and making sure we leave enough water in the environment will become more challenging in the future. We expect proposals for nationally significant infrastructure to originate from statutory water resource management plans, as these are where options to reduce demand and increase supply have been assessed. We know that some new infrastructure will be needed to meet water demand in the future. Our assessment of the current draft water resource management plans is that around half a dozen proposed projects, needing to start in the next decade or so, are likely to qualify as nationally significant under the Act as amended by the proposed order. For all the reasons that I have outlined and because of the Government’s strong view that we need to plan for the future, I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, we all want water but we also want safeguards. Much of my contribution is going to be about safeguards. When I saw this order—which was only this afternoon—I had to do some pretty speedy homework and make a few phone calls. I also looked up on the internet the definition of NSIPs, and they are described as,
“major infrastructure project developments in England and Wales that bypass normal local planning requirements”.
Whenever I see those sorts of words, I think immediately: what are the safeguards? There are no safeguards that I can see defined in the order before us.
I want to draw attention to a particular example of where things could go wrong when there are no safeguards. I will tell the story of what happened over the Thirlmere reservoir in the Lake District. I am presuming that United Utilities and other water companies are among those to which the Minister referred when he spoke about the consultation that took place. I am sure that they would have a primary interest in ensuring that this order goes through, because I would imagine that in certain circumstances they will certainly be the beneficiary of it and use it.
Thirlmere is in my former constituency in Cumbria, which I represented for some 21 years. For many of those years, it was a major problem because of the way the legislation had originally been framed in terms of protecting the interests of consumers and residents in the area. The primary use of Thirlmere, as it was described in a letter from one of the senior managers in the Environment Agency, is,
“as a water resource reservoir for United Utilities. In addition, United Utilities has voluntarily drawn down the reservoir to enable some flood storage during winter months. However, as the low reservoir levels during the 2018 dry weather period show, there needs to be a careful balance between Thirlmere’s primary use as a water supply and its use for flood storage”.
That is what I am on about—the balance. There is nothing in these regulations that even refers to the need for safeguards as part of the discussion around the balance between the availability of water and flood risk in local communities.
I want to now refer to some incidents that took place and the response of the local communities. In January 2005, November 2009 and December 2015, Keswick, a town where I have lived for most of my life, was flooded. On the last occasion, 515 properties were flooded during Storm Desmond. As the formidable Lynne Jones, secretary of the Keswick Flood Action Group, said in correspondence to United Utilities:
“I make no apology for continuing to contact you. I know that UU will never really manage the reservoir with a view to our safety without legislation to enforce them to do so”.
That is precisely why I am speaking on this order, because it is not in here. In the end, the solution is in your hands; you who are far away and who cannot understand the fear that so many in our community live with.
There are 2,630 residential properties in Keswick, and 515 properties flooded during Storm Desmond in 2015. Let me explain to the Committee what that means. Keswick is a town in two parts: there is the lower part and the higher part. In the main, the higher part does not flood, although certain parts of it do. But the lower part floods extensively. In the lower part of the town, there has been a dramatic drop in property prices. I do not live there, but the people who do worry constantly about the fact that they cannot sell their properties and have difficulty insuring them. Throughout the winter months, they are haunted by the prospect of being flooded. The river Greta, which runs through the town, has built-in flood defences, which broke down on one occasion. The truth is that the town is living in fear because of inadequate safeguards.
Today, legislation is going through that will make it easier for water companies to pursue the development of reservoirs without the safeguards that the people in Keswick demand for Thirlmere. It is a very clear idea. I imagine that they are the people driving this on because they know that they will be able to bypass much of the planning arrangements that currently exist.
I want to refer to what people think should happen in the future to resolve these problems. Within these regulations, there should be reference to measures to ensure that communities are safeguarded. Lynne Jones has been in contact with me today, and I will refer in this debate to what she said. She said it is obvious that the reservoir should be managed for flood alleviation alongside water supply. However, legislation is needed to make this a reality, and the present Floods Minister refuses to consider this possibility. So we are going to have more reservoirs, without safeguards, and the potential of future flooding. She went on to say—
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I wonder whether I might help the noble Lord. I can see the line of approach he is developing and would be the first to say that all Governments need to address flooding concerns.
Important to the context of this work is that it is all predicated on the Reservoirs Act 1975, which sets out extensively the safety requirements of large reservoirs and contains a number of provisions, which I am happy to outline.
This piece of work is from the Planning Act 2008. There is already legislation on the matters that the noble Lord is raising. I apologise for intervening but I just wanted to say that this is not in isolation; there is other legislation which deals with safety. The noble Lord may well question the 1975 Act but there is legislation, passed by Parliament, which deals with the safety of reservoirs. I hope that is helpful to not only the noble Lord—I am sure he knows about this legislation anyway—but other noble Lords.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My case is very simple: the legislation does not work. That is why half of Keswick lives in fear every winter. If you go to Keswick today and take a poll on the street and ask people what their major concern is, it is that their houses are going to be flooded. In the last flood in that small town, 515 properties were flooded. Many of them had to be evacuated. So when we talk about legislation being there to protect these communities, I am sorry, it is just not working. We need legislation that works. This order offered us an opportunity to deal with these matters. It could have referred to other regulations which could be introduced to deal with those safeguards but there is no reference at all to them. So I will carry on.
The second point Lynne Jones makes is on scheme funding. She says:
“The way that the EA look at the financial viability of a scheme does not lend itself to a full catchment approach. Funding is limited to the cost of damage to the individual towns and each is considered in isolation. If funding looked at the damage to farms/infrastructure/footpaths etc. from the high fells to the coast then perhaps Cumbria/our catchment/Keswick would have a better chance of getting viable schemes. The EA has trumpeted a full catchment approach loud and long since the 2015 floods but the only actions are, frankly, an excuse to have various NGOs have their snouts in the trough and get money to plant trees/reconnect the river to the flood plain/re-wilding and other tinkering schemes which keep them in jobs and have no real impact on the kinds of flows which threaten homes”.
This is what people in Keswick believe, yet we are putting through an order which makes it easier for these water companies to build without safeguards.
Lynne Jones goes on to say:
“We need to tackle the series of intense and prolonged winter storms that we experience. Doing easy/cheap/relatively ineffective things and expecting us to cheer is not really helpful. I firmly believe that 6.4 of the Habitats Directive is not applied in the spirit for which it was created … Flood risk needs priority over environment. Brexit is an opportunity to improve legislation for community protection from flooding”.
She then says:
“The government’s funding formula is unfair. The Derwent catchment has no money for any major works which could reduce flood risk. The funding formula does not take into account much of the costs which a community like ours faces: damage to bridges, pathways, parks, sports facilities, tourism and business in the area; nor does it take into account depth of flooding, repeat flooding and the detrimental effects it can have on the health and well-being of the community”.
I return to my case: there is nothing about safeguards in this order. We drive such orders through, give these big companies the right to build more of these reservoirs and the regulations are not in place to safeguard communities.
Finally, the letter talks about resilience:
“Government has to stop praising our resilience. We have no choice. Resilience is used as an option instead of addressing the real risks. I doubt the Dutch would accept resilience as an option”—
I am sure they would not. She continues:
“Resilience leaves people open to cowboy builders, inflated prices, product companies that don’t last long enough to honour their guarantees. People are encouraged to buy flood gates when the water seeps in through the brickwork/up from the floor and the only dry section is the flood gate itself. Resilience is useless if flood water is over a metre deep as water then has to enter homes to prevent structural damage. Unscrupulous firms will sell products anyway”.
My point is very simple and I will repeat for a fourth time: this order gives big companies the right to build new water facilities—which the Minister has talked about and we all welcome—but the safeguards are not there. People are going to suffer. There will be more flooding in the future, probably as a result of these developments, because the legislative background that the Minister referred to does not work. People in the north of England, particularly in Keswick, desperately want legislation to deal with a problem that in many cases is ruining their lives, in some cases is ruining their livelihood and in many cases is ruining their health. I appeal to the Government to listen to these people and stop fobbing them off with silly little schemes.
Baroness Byford (Con)
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and sympathise with the situation in which people find themselves in Keswick. The Minister has already referred the noble Lord to the previous Act and said that there are restrictions in it. If they are not being observed or things are not being done, that is a slightly different issue from what is before us today. However, I well understand the vehemence with which he has—“used” is the wrong expression—taken the opportunity to raise the whole issue of having a development in not the right area and not protected in the same way. I suspect that other Members of the Committee will come back on the issue of flooding.
I support and welcome the measure before us. The question asked earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was: “Who is driving it and why are we having it?”. From my very amateur point of view, it is looking to the future. There are going to be more people and we are going to need more water, so the ability to have four or six newer, larger innovations that will enable us to use water in a better and more sustainable way has to be the right approach. Still, I say to the noble Lord that it is not that I do not sympathise; it has been a terrible experience for people who have been troubled by flooding.
I welcome this statutory instrument. We need to plan for the long term. We cannot suddenly find ourselves short of water with nothing to fall back on. As someone who comes from the farming community, I am only too aware of the many demands there are for growing more food. The one crucial thing that we need is water. For those who live on the west side of the country, water is not an issue—it is there all the while—but for those of us who farm on the eastern side it is a huge problem. So being able to enlarge a reservoir or have desalination as a backstop has to be a welcome new initiative.
The Minister mentioned climate change. I agree with him, whatever the way in which it is changing. I think this last year will have reinforced the fact of climate change for all of us: it was a very cold winter, then we had a lot of rain and then in East Anglia we had three months of no rain at all. So we need the ability to be able to drain off water in order to supply crops. Those in rural areas who were not able to do so lost crops and could not get them off the fields because there was no water to enable it to happen. So we face big challenges.
I gather we have more consultation coming in a draft towards the end of the year. Perhaps when that draft comes through, it could include some of the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has indicated today. We need to ensure that where new reservoirs or desalination plants are being built, they are in a suitable place and not likely to reproduce the experience that they have had up in Keswick. There have been various consultations, and as far as I understand it they have on the whole been supportive.
I have one query for the Minister about the Explanatory Memorandum. There was one part of that I picked up on and did not quite understand because it struck me as slightly odd. I refer the Committee to paragraph 6.4:
“The development also cannot relate to the transfer of drinking water”.
I thought: why not? I am sure the Minister will be able to tell me why, but it seemed odd that we are dealing with different things. However, I suspect from listening to the earlier debate with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that it will go back to a previous Act, where something will be written in to define what it is. Again, I think it should be slightly clearer in the memorandum because I do not understand why.
I am happy to support the statutory instrument, but I should like the Minister to bear in mind some of the comments that have already been made on the question of where such developments are positioned. This is a key issue. In some areas, I am sure that people will accept that they need to be there. They may be rural areas—I do not know quite how they would be defined, but in future years we will need to balance flood protection with water conservation and using water to the best of our ability.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, my experience of water retention on this scale is that I was involved in the transformation of Loch Lomond into a reservoir capable of supplying 450 million litres of water a day.
On the volume of water held back by a dam being increased from 10 million to 30 million cubic litres, perhaps the Minister can say whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, can take some comfort from the fact that the smaller reservoirs would still be subject to all the regulations in the 1975 Act. I have just come from a meeting where we were addressed by an executive from Anglian Water. He said that it was under severe pressure this summer and that, if it has to extract any more water from ground sources, it feels that it will be moving into an area where damage might be caused. This must be quite a worry.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the SI and agree with many of the comments of my noble friend Lady Byford. We have droughts in the eastern part of the UK, so I welcome looking at our reservoirs and desalination plants.
I have a query about the impact on costs to local authorities. In paragraph 12.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, it says that,
“there will be a slight increase in costs to Local Authorities … as more resource will be required in order to advise on applications”.
Is that for central government or for local authorities? Budgets are tight and I should like some clarification, particularly on that explanatory note.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a district councillor. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for setting the scene so clearly.
Water is a natural resource which is not finite. Our lives and livelihoods depend on it, and the well-being of all living creatures, trees and plants relies on there being a ready and plentiful supply of fresh water.
As the Minister has said, the change to the Planning Act 2008 for nationally significant infrastructure projects was out to consultation for six weeks during November 2017 and then for a shorter, three-week period in April this year. The first consultation resulted in a significant number of responses but no definitive consensus. The second consultation received 20 responses from those bodies directly affected by the change to the law. There was broad agreement with the proposed amendments. I find this encouraging, as it is quite a significant alteration to the capacity currently covered by the 2008 Act.
The change from 10 million to 30 million cubic metres represents a trebling of dam or reservoir capacity. This is likely to have some impact on the surrounding area and, no doubt, the people affected will have views that they wish to express.
To avoid drought conditions in parts of the country—such as we have heard about—it is imperative for major projects which both conserve and move water to be streamlined to ensure they proceed on time.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s explanation and echo the thanks of the noble Baroness to him for the courtesy of arranging a briefing on this SI in advance of today’s consideration. We, too, broadly welcome the proposals, which we believe will lead to greater water resilience in the UK. As we know, despite its reputation for rain, England is at increasing risk of water shortages. Extreme weather from climate change, coupled with an increasing population, especially in the drier southern and eastern areas, has put the water system under increasing pressure. We know that that will only rise over the coming decades.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that extreme weather is not just about drought; it is also about flooding. We have debated time and again in the Chamber the terrible consequences for local communities—not just in Keswick, but in other areas—which are faced with the same infrastructure breakdown which allows flooding to take place over and over again. The Government need to address that key challenge. I agree that this may not be the right vehicle to do that, but we should not lose sight of the important challenge of addressing the sort of communities which he spoke so passionately about.
Thames Water warned, just last month, that in a little over 25 years a projected population growth of more than 2 million people will leave a shortfall of 250 million litres per day between the amount of water available and that used. We have to address the issue of water shortage nationally. This has not been helped by an ageing infrastructure and a lack of investment from water companies in the past. This means that change is necessary to create a modern infrastructure which can adapt to new demands, which we can already predict will add pressure to the system.
The Minister will be aware that several stakeholders argued during the consultation that demand management techniques should be exhausted before any new infrastructure is developed and that water transfers should be a last resort. We agree that that while reservoirs and dams can play a key role in stabilising water availability, it is imperative that we reduce demand and waste. One area where progress is urgently needed relates to the industry’s inability to get on top of leaks. The noble Lord will know that in June Thames Water was ordered to pay £120 million back to customers, having been found to have breached its licence conditions by allowing millions of litres of water to spew out of pipes through leaks. So we need urgent action to reduce water leaks, with meaningful targets for action by water companies year on year. Will the Minister update us on the agreements that have been reached with water companies to make this a reality? Will he also explain what action is being taken to change consumer behaviour around domestic water consumption? Breaking through this barrier is a real challenge, not least because consumers have a simplistic view of the water cycle and the ease by which turning on a tap can deliver water without any concern to the source of that water supply.
Any government proposals must make sure that the ways we build infrastructure and supply water in the future are sustainable for the environment and for local communities. According to a report published by WWF, nearly one-quarter of all rivers in England are at risk because of the vast amounts of water being removed for use by farms, businesses and homes. Some 14% of rivers were classed as overabstracted, meaning that water removed is causing river levels to drop below those required to sustain wildlife, while a further 9% were described as overlicensed, meaning that the river would fall to a similarly low level if permits to take water were utilised fully. This means that if permits to abstract water from rivers were fully utilised, levels of water would be unable to sustain wildlife and the necessary biodiversity that goes with it. What safeguards are in place to ensure that the increase in nationally significant projects does not lead to more overlicensed and overabstracted rivers? Will the Minister ensure that the national policy statement on water resources prioritises sustainability, not profits?
One of the key challenges of these proposals is the issue of local engagement. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, touched on this and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours dwelt on it in some detail. In the proposals for large infrastructure projects there are indeed legitimate local concerns that need to be heard and addressed. I know that the Minister raised this in his introduction and set out the Government’s aspirations, but it would be helpful if he would clarify how he intends to use the powers the Government are taking to guarantee proper community consultation in the future, so that he can give more assurance to noble Lords in this regard.
The Minister will also know that the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management has expressed concerns that the criterion for defining a nationally significant infrastructure project,
“does not consider any regional or supra-regional water resources issues”.
Will he ensure that the Environmental Agency and Ofwat recognise the importance of regional, multisector resource planning in delivering these changes, so that it is not just about local consultation involvement but also proper consultation at regional level?
Finally, while we welcome the introduction of desalination plants as a new category of NSIP, we share the view of many stakeholders that effluent reuse systems should also have been included. While these facilities are used only in times of projected or actual drought, it is likely that we will come to rely more on this type of water supply in the future, owing to the existential challenge of climate change and population increase. Can the Minister explain what more is being done to expand investment in this sector and encourage water recycling? Does he accept that not including effluent reuse as a new category of NSIP may deter investment in such plants?
In conclusion, we welcome the proposed amendments and support the Government’s stated twin-track approach to improving resilience by stabilising supply and reducing consumption. This will be achieved only as part of an ambitious, long-term plan for the environment, including new policies to manage our water resources, a plan to meet our climate change targets and a strategy to reduce domestic consumption—as well, of course, as dealing with the extreme water consequences we have been debating this evening. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I point out at the outset that although I am not as aware as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is about the flooding in his part of the world, as a Defra Minister, and beforehand, I absolutely understand and have seen the devastation and horror of flooding—indeed, the fatalities there have been—across the country. I am thinking particularly of the flooding experienced in one sense on the west side of the country, while on the eastern side there has so often been coastal flooding where the most terrible events have also happened.
I want to take away all that the noble Lord has said, and would be very happy to hear from any of the people who may have contacted him. I am not the Minister who has direct responsibility for flooding but in this House I take responsibility for all Defra matters, and I want to hear much more about the situation of residents there. I have friends in Cumbria who have suffered from the flooding, and I know that communities have been in a very difficult situation for many years. Perhaps I may spend some time outside of this discussion understanding more about the particular points that the noble Lord raised about Thirlmere and the issue of safeguards.
I know it was probably incorrect of me to intervene as I did, but I wanted to ensure that what we are trying to do here, through the Planning Act 2008, was on the record early on. I would of course want to hear in more detail whether there are issues with safety in reservoirs and the 1975 legislation, or issues arising therefrom, that we need to consider. This provision comes from the Planning Act 2008, and I suggest that it enables us to deal with the small number of what we believe to be nationally significant infrastructure projects for water. This is the route that that Act envisaged. We are seeking to add some detail to it and, as I say, include desalination plants.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to intervene. I want to ask one question. A part of the town now lives in fear of flooding, as I said, and in a large part of the town there has been a major drop in the property values of people’s homes. I presume that there must be people now who are in difficulty over their mortgages. Because of the lack of legislation at the moment, with no way of controlling the operations of United Utilities, is it not possible for some national fund to be set up to help people who are in difficulty over the sale of their properties? I heard about a house last week that was on the market at nearly £600,000 and is being sold for £350,000. These are huge losses, which do not derive from the actions of the people that own them but directly from the absence of legislation that governs flooding. As I say, the danger in this order is that there will be more in the future.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Clearly, I am not in a position to talk about resources, as he will understand very well. But obviously, in a different sense, this is why the Government brought forward Flood Re—there was a lot of consideration in the insurance world vis-à-vis it—to seek to address some of the difficulties that householders had. In fact, the noble Lord and I have had conversations about this and some of the distinct elements of where it has been successful. However, I understand generally that Flood Re has been a considerable success for householders with this problem.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Claims Management Activity) Order 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Claims Management Activity) Order 2018.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, claims management companies offer advice and other services to consumers making claims for compensation. They can provide vital support for consumers who may be unwilling or unable to bring a claim for compensation themselves. When the CMCs market functions well, these companies can act as a check and balance on business conduct.
CMCs are currently regulated by the Claims Management Regulator, under the Ministry of Justice. This regulatory regime was established in 2006 through the Compensation Act and was initially intended to be temporary. Reports of widespread misconduct suggested that the Government should act to strengthen regulation of CMCs. In 2015 the Brady review found evidence that the majority of stakeholders felt the Claims Management Regulator lacks the sufficient powers and resources to supervise the market properly. The Government took the first step to stronger regulation in 2016 through the Financial Guidance and Claims Act. This mandated the transfer of regulation to the FCA and the handling of complaints about CMCs to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The aim of this legislation is to introduce a robust regulatory regime for CMCs that benefits consumers and is proportionate to the needs of the sector. We consulted on its provisions and we are confident that this legislation delivers on this aim. Through changes to the regulated activities order and the financial promotions order, this legislation makes claims management a regulated activity in England and Wales and in Scotland for the first time. This will require firms to seek authorisation from the FCA in order to promote and carry out claims management services.
The order defines the types of claims management activities that will be regulated by the FCA by creating seven different permissions across different sectors for different types of activity. This will mean that regulation will be comprehensive as each CMC will need separate permissions depending on the specific activities and sectors that it wishes to operate in, which will enable the FCA to take into account the different types of work across each sector and different activities. Regulation will also be kept proportionate as CMCs will need authorisation only for the activities they actually carry out.
This is a change from the previous regime, which set out one permission enabling claims management activity across six different sectors. These six sectors have been preserved from the previous regime and mean that CMCs must be regulated for their activities in personal injury, financial products and services, employment issues, industrial and criminal injuries, housing disrepair, and for seeking out, referring, and identifying claims. As the Economic Secretary noted in the other place, the Government are aware of increasing claims management activity in areas other than those I have just named. The Government will monitor the new regulatory regime and consider how best to meet this challenge.
The order also sets out which organisations are exempt from the FCA’s regulation. Concerns had been raised about the exemption of legal professionals, but I can assure the Committee that, first, solicitors are already strictly regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for their work, which can closely resemble claims management work, and secondly, CMCs will not be exempt from regulation merely because they employ a solicitor. Rather the exemption is designed to ensure legal firms are not unduly burdened by dual regulation.
We have taken steps to make sure that this is a smooth transition. The FCA will be implementing a temporary permissions regime to ease the process for CMCs. The FCA is well placed to take on the regulation of CMCs, having already started to build the department which will oversee the transition of regulation. It is well resourced and has an expert pool of conduct supervisors and detailed knowledge of financial services. CMCs will be held to the same conduct standards as all FCA-authorised firms, and the FCA’s rules will provide a robust and proportionate framework for how CMCs should carry out business and treat their customers. The FCA will be able to use its regulatory powers to deal with CMCs that do not abide by its rules.
In summary, the Government believe that the proposed legislation is necessary to ensure that the regulation of claims management companies is fit for purpose so that consumers can benefit from a professional service that offers value for money. I hope members of the Committee will join me in supporting the order. I commend the order to the Committee.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the order. The FCA’s greater range of powers allows for tougher regulation to address the conduct issues and other problems that we are familiar with in the CMC market. The reauthorising of existing claims management companies will ensure that they can comply with the new regime, and the senior managers regime can be used to hold managers accountable for the actions of their businesses. All this is to be welcomed.
Is there any estimate of how many existing claims management companies will not get authorisation under the new regulatory regime? What will happen to the cases that such companies are handling if they are not authorised? The previous regime required only one permission to enable claims management activity across all six sectors—personal injury, financial products and services, employment, industrial and criminal injuries, and housing disrepair. The order creates seven different permissions across those sectors, which again is a positive because it strengthens and focuses the regulation of the CMCs. However, it maintains the same exclusions and exemptions from FCA regulation that existed in the previous regime, even though there have been a number of responses to consultation suggesting that additional sectors should be brought into scope, particularly claims about cavity wall insulation, aviation and timeshares.
Ofgem’s response to the Treasury consultation, by way of example, was prompted by an increase in correspondence with claims management companies dealing with cavity wall insulation, which are not regulated under the current regime. In eight months it received over 2,250 such requests compared with only 80 in the same period for the previous year. The energy company obligation scheme, which Ofgem administers, places an obligation on larger energy suppliers to deliver energy efficiency measures, including cavity wall insulation, particularly to individuals in fuel poverty and therefore vulnerable households. Ofgem considers that the significant increase in the number of subject access requests reflects claims management companies looking to pursue claims for clients against failed or wrongly installed insulation.
Somewhat wryly, Ofgem observes that over 6.2 million homes have cavity wall insulation under government schemes. It is clearly an emerging area for claims management companies, and it is in the interest of consumers for this area to be regulated. The Government’s response was to the effect that further work was needed to understand whether this and other claims sectors should be regulated. Against that, though, we are hearing from an authoritative regulator telling the Government that there is an escalating problem that needs to be addressed. I ask the Minister to confirm the extent to which the order allows for additional claims sectors to be included in the new regime and to what extent a further statutory instrument is required to extend its scope. When can we expect a decision on the inclusion of cavity wall insulation claims? What other sectors are the Government currently considering whether to include?
It is proposed that the exemption afforded to claims management activity by independent unions, if they adhere to a code of practice, is maintained. Again, in my view that is a positive because thousands of trade union members get service through their union. The existing code applicable to trade unions will be replaced by a new code to be published by the Treasury in time, I understand, for the regulatory transfer on 1 April 2019. What is the process for consulting the trade unions? Could the Minister give a steer on what areas in the code the Treasury is looking to change?
The Minister referred to solicitors carrying on claims management activity also being exempt if that activity is carried on as part of their ordinary legal practice because regulation comes via the Solicitors Regulation Authority. If a solicitor is not acting in the ordinary course of their legal practice but is carrying on claims management activity separately, the exclusion does not apply. Again, I noted that several responses to the Treasury consultation questioned that exemption or expressed concern about the robustness of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, suggesting, as one sees if one reads the submissions, that a risk of regulatory arbitrage could arise where the presence of a legal professional in a company allows it to seek SRA authorisation rather than meeting the more robust FCA process. Although the SRA and the FCA can develop memorandums, which I am sure they will, what assurances can the Minister give that this risk of regulatory arbitrage will be closely monitored, and does this order allow the FCA to revoke that exemption—that is, if it wants to consider that exemption, can it do so under this regulation?
Finally, under the General Data Protection Regulation 2018 and the Data Protection Act 2018, where personal data is obtained through an unlawful cold call, further use of it is prohibited. This is something that many of my colleagues were concerned about during the debate on this matter in the House. I know from reading the documents that the FCA is consulting on requiring claims management companies that buy leads from third parties to carry out due diligence to determine whether the lead generator is authorised and complies with the relevant legislation and regulations. However, again, I ask the Minister: when will the FCA conclude what is required of claims management companies—that is, to undertake due diligence and ensure that the leads they are buying are authorised—and will that be available before April 2019?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, given the hour, I shall try to be very brief. I support this statutory instrument but want to reiterate some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and others.
Obviously, I support the transfer of supervisory responsibility to the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service, but it will be effective only if the FCA decides that it will use its powers. The notes accompanying the statutory instrument refer to the senior managers and certification regime, which has been in place for two and a half years. The industry was initially very afraid of that regime and the discipline that might follow, but it is not so any longer. Can the Minister tell us or ask his officials to write to us setting out how many actions have been taken under that regime? Obviously, you do not expect anything in the first months but, by now, given the fairly constant level of misbehaviour within the financial services industry, we should be seeing something coming through. I fear that the number will be quite low—possibly even zero.
I also reflect the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, expressed about exemptions. The Minister referred in particular to the concerns expressed in consultation about the exemption for the legal profession, and he talked of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I am afraid that its reputation is not good, and it is certainly not one of a body that is rigorous in its enforcement. I understand that there will be a memorandum of understanding and some sort of joint regime between that body and the FCA, but it would have been handy to have sight of that before we saw the SI. Can the Minister expand on that to give us some level of confidence both that these two bodies will work together and that they will be determined to be rigorous—something that, frankly, sits in neither’s history?
I pick up the issue of cold calling, which the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, addressed. As the Minister knows, we have been very concerned that there is not a much more vigorous prohibition on using data obtained in an unauthorised way, and cold calling was a particular issue. The fact that no penalty will be paid by those who use the information is a really significant loophole. Can the Minister give us any update on whether there will be action in this arena? He will know that, although Parliament has provided many powers for regulators to tackle cold calling, anecdotally we are aware that its incidence has not slacked; it has just become much more targeted against vulnerable people. That is almost the worst outcome that any of us could have anticipated and something that needs to be dealt with very rapidly.
Lastly, I turn to the issue of new areas. This industry has a long history of producing one new wheeze after another. We could use some assurance that the FCA and others will be able to move rapidly as it begins to become evident that the industry has found yet another way to target individuals in some abusive form. I do not want to damn all claims companies. Some of them are very good; some are extremely responsible, but it is an industry that has managed to draw in quite a number of rogues. We all want them to be expelled as soon as possible.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome this statutory instrument and thank the Minister for introducing it. I also endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, has said, particularly her questions. I will not repeat what she said, but just observe that the regime will involve the Senior Managers and Certification Regime. I am sorry to hear that it is not as yet being used effectively. Perhaps the Minister will reduce our concerns. Perhaps it would be more top-of-mind if the reversed burden of proof originally in the scheme had been retained. Certainly, it is meant to be a regime which makes managers very clear of their duties, if not fearful. I endorse the idea of six bundled areas of responsibility being expressly divided into seven. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether there should be more than seven. It is a bit unfair of me, but I feel that the ombudsman becoming the financial ombudsman gives me a feel that he will be steelier and more effective.
The solicitor exemption depends on the exclusion that the activity is being carried on as part of their ordinary legal practice. The trouble is that we are talking about solicitors. They are paid to get around regulations. Who will be policing that boundary? Who will have responsibility for understanding what a particular solicitor is doing and saying, “Sorry, that should now go into the financial control”? The solicitors doing this work in the ordinary course of their business nevertheless need proper regulation. Is the Solicitors Regulation Authority up to the job?
Lastly, I understand that the CMRU staff will be redundant at a point when the FCA will, we hope, looking for similar skills. I would like to know the Government’s plans at a practical level for those staff.
Lord Bates
I thank noble Lords for their scrutiny of this SI and for their general welcome. I will try to address some of the key points and questions which have been raised.
First, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked about estimates of numbers. According to the CMRU, there are current 1,238 authorised CMCs in operation. The overall number of authorised CMCs has been reducing on average by 10.9% per year for the past four years. The FCA’s modelling shows that it expects to take on 906 firms in 2019.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned the solicitors’ exemption and concern about potential regulatory arbitrage. The SRA and the FCA are in the process of updating their memoranda of understanding to ensure that the sector is closely monitored and properly regulated. The order contains a provision which disapplies the exemption from regulation by the FCA, should a CMC seek to avoid FCA regulation by employing a solicitor. That CMC will continue to be regulated by the FCA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about solicitors, and not other regulated professionals, being exempt. Solicitors are already regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I understand the point that she made about that authority. The work of a solicitor advising on a claim is the same as, or very similar to, the work of a CMC seeking compensation for a consumer. As solicitors are regulated by the SRA for their usual activity, appropriate regulatory oversight is already present.
The Government have retained the other existing exemptions; we consider it correct that these bodies are not subject to regulation. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. The FCA will continue to monitor exemption from claims management regulation if it moves or migrates into other activities. Of course, it will also retain the right to come back with further suggestions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked about the exemption for trade unions.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I was just touching upon the code of practice for trade unions, in response to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. The Treasury proposes to maintain the code for trade unions and will replace the MoJ on the monitoring board. The Treasury is working with the Trades Union Congress and Scottish Trades Union Congress at an official level and will publish the code in due course. The code is being amended, mainly to update it to reflect the transfer of regulation.
The noble Baroness asked about CMCs moving into other sectors. We will carefully monitor the effectiveness of CMC regulation and work with the FCA, the SRA and others to ensure that the sector is benefiting its customers. On the estimate of how many CMCs will not get authorisation from the FCA and what will happen to their cases, the number of CMCs has been declining, and I gave some statistics on that at the beginning.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked what will happen to the highly qualified CMRU staff. The CMRU and the FCA are currently agreeing the transfer of staff as part of their transfer scheme under the Financial Guidance and Claims Act. The details are still subject to discussion.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked whether the Solicitors Regulation Authority was up to the task. The SRA is subject to oversight by the Ministry of Justice and provides strict professional regulation. A memorandum of understanding between the SRA and the FCA is being reviewed.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My question was: who can call a halt and say, “No, it must transfer”? If you have a solicitor who is growing like Topsy, who will know that by now they should stop doing that and reregister as a proper claims organisation?
Lord Bates
That is something that I think the FCA would be liaising on. If it felt that its activities were aligned with a CMC then, as I mentioned earlier, that would mean it would have to continue to be regulated by the FCA. On the specific point, unless there is any inspiration on its way, I will write with clarification to the noble Lord.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked if any action had been taken on CMCs doing their due diligence on data under GDPR. The FCA is in the process of updating and publishing its rules for the CMC regime. It will be working closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is responsible for the oversight of data protection laws, to ensure that CMCs comply with the order, FCA rules and data protection legislation.
The noble Baroness asked whether the SRA was an effective regulator. The MoJ is responsible for the oversight of the SRA. The FCA and the SRA are currently reviewing their memorandum of understanding, and their conclusions will be published in due course. I think that covers most of the points.
Baroness Drake
Could the Minister clarify a point from one of my questions? Where an existing claims management company, authorised under the previous regime, transfers across to the FCA on the due date in April and is then subjected to the reauthorisation process but is not reauthorised, what happens in that instance to the caseload that it has been managing?
Lord Bates
They will be given 30 days to wind down their business in the event that that happens. I can write to the noble Baroness when I write to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and expand on that point if that would be helpful.
Baroness Drake
It is more about the consumer protection aspect that a group of people would be caught up in that, and I wondered who would carry on managing their cases. I am happy for the noble Lord to write to me about that.
Lord Bates
I will look at the record and check that I have answered the points as best I can and write regarding the points that I have agreed to. In the meantime, I beg to move.
House of Lords
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Women’s Refuges: Funding
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the sustainability of funding for women’s refuges.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Donaghy, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, since 2014 the Government have invested £33.5 million in domestic abuse services. On 10 November we announced a further £22 million for 2018-20. My department is also conducting a review of how domestic abuse services are locally commissioned and funded across England. We are working closely with domestic abuse key partners to develop future sustainable delivery options for domestic abuse services, including refuges.
Baroness Nye
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but he will know that applications by cash-strapped local authorities far exceeded the money available, which is simply not enough to deliver what the Government have promised, especially in the light of the forthcoming domestic violence and abuse Bill. This also creates a cliff edge in 2020, which threatens the sustainability of services. Will he support calls by Women’s Aid, the House of Commons Select Committee, the Home Affairs Select Committee, and others, to make refuge provision a statutory obligation, backed by national ring-fenced funding, and to make long-term sustainable funding a priority in the forthcoming spending review?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is worth noting that the recent announcement I referred to funded 63 projects around the country, involving 254 local authorities, and has provided not just security for the 25,000 existing beds but an additional 2,200 bed spaces. The noble Baroness is right about the challenges. That is why I referred to the ongoing review of how we fund these services across England. She is also right about the importance of the domestic abuse Bill, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister referred to in Prime Minister’s Questions today, pledging that it would be brought forward in this Session.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, across the United Kingdom support for refuges is funded in numerous complex and insecure ways. It is a postcode lottery, and refuges are spending an inordinate amount of time bidding for money to keep going, instead of caring for the traumatised women and children who they have been able to admit. In 2016-17, 60% had to be turned away. Will the Government commit to work with Women’s Aid and other organisations to create a new model of sustainable funding for a national network of specialist women’s refuges?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, we do, of course, work with Women’s Aid, which is a key partner. It welcomed—with reservations, to be fair—the recent announcement of the 63 projects that I have referred to. We also work with other organisations in the sector—Refuge, SafeLives and Imkaan, for example. I again refer to the ongoing review, which is important—but as things stand we fund quite a range of different ways of providing refuges: it is not one size fits all. This is ongoing work, and that important review is forthcoming.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. May I remind the Minister of the importance of looking after a particular group, the victims of forced marriage, many of whom are under 18 and need rather more specialist care than many refuges can give them?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness is right about the complex needs of victims of forced marriage. They are catered for in those 63 projects, as are other groups with complex needs. The noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that any plans to fund accommodation-based services will focus not only on emergency provision, such as in a refuge, but on move-on accommodation? There are too many women, particularly in London, who cannot move on from a refuge because of a lack of move-on accommodation, and therefore women who need refuge urgently cannot access it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend, who has done much work in this area, particularly with SafeLives, is right about the importance of the range of different ways, which I just referred to, of providing refuge services. She is right about the particular needs that need to be catered for, and we have sought to do that in the current funding round. For example, we are funding a three-borough initiative—Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham—which is providing a range of different ways of providing protection for victims of domestic abuse. My noble friend is absolutely right.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, what specific measures are the Government taking in regard to Muslim women? I declare my interest as the honorary president of Muslim Women’s Network UK. Not only do they have to be protected from violence; they need specific arrangements and specific spaces which they consider clean for praying, as well as protection from the men in their own families. What arrangements are made for them?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Baroness is right about the particular needs of that community, which she has just outlined. It was a group specifically identified in the bids that we have just been honouring in the 63 projects. I will write to her on the specifics of that, but the BME and the Muslim communities were identified as being in particular need in those bids.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the LGA. Since 2010, specialist refuges have been cut by one-fifth. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, 60% of referrals to refuges by Women’s Aid are refused due to lack of bed space. That means that 90 women and their dependent children are turned away every day. Is the Minister saying that the money he referred to in his earlier answer will replace those cuts? If not, why are the Government not doing more?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I said that there is work still to be done—I think I used those very words. Part of that is, of course, the funding review that is going on at the moment. I also said that an additional 2,200 bed spaces have been created and there have been some specific projects. The noble Lord mentioned women turned away. There is a No Woman Turned Away project which ensures that people have caseworker support. There is still more to be done—I would not argue with that point—but progress has been made on these projects, and progress will be made with the funding review.
Brexit: Economic Effects
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the Chambers of Commerce and Confederation of British Industry representatives in the United Kingdom’s regions and nations about the economic effects of Brexit.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Government continue to engage with business groups, including the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, on the economic effects of EU exit across the UK’s regions. We remain committed to ensuring that the views of business are reflected in our approach to Brexit, and businesses have responded positively to the draft of the withdrawal agreement published last week.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, the Government announced in the other place on Monday that they would publish an economic and fiscal analysis of the effects of Brexit. In this House the Minister and his ministerial colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, have also said that there will be updated impact assessments of the effects of Brexit on our regions and nations. In view of the Prime Minister’s proposed deal, and also of the continuing concerns of business, can the Minister give us some outline of the timetable for publishing this additional information?
Lord Bates
Yes, I can. The position will be contingent on the outcome of the Council, but if there is agreement there on the proposal put forward in the withdrawal agreement, and also on the crucial element of political declaration on the future partnership, we would expect to produce that analysis and put it in the public domain next week.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, yesterday the FT City Network—a forum of more than 50 senior city figures—spoke out in favour of a people’s vote. Another wave of City members wrote to the FT today with exactly the same message. The IoD, to its own surprise, found that a survey of its members produced a majority in favour of a people’s vote. Will the Government finally consider a people’s vote? For business, while no deal would be a catastrophe, the proposed May deal is so second-rate that it diminishes them.
Lord Bates
Talking to the British Chambers of Commerce, CBI and all the business organisations, I find that the one thing they all want is for a deal to be done. They want certainty. They want to understand where they are so that they can continue to trade and move forward. That is what the Prime Minister has put before us, that is what the Cabinet has agreed, and that is what we hope will be agreed at the European Council next week. That is the best way forward for Britain, and it is the best way forward for business.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, if we want clarity and certainty, all that a so-called people’s vote can do is prolong the agony, deepen the division and make it far more difficult to come to a sensible conclusion.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s Answer to my noble friend Lady Quin was somewhat elliptical and roseate in hue. When we come to the question of the Commons having to consider the issue of the meaningful vote, is it not the case that the Minister in the Commons confessed on Monday that the economic analysis would of course depend on aspects of withdrawal, but with Britain still a full member of the European Community? How on earth can that prove to be realistic in people’s judgment on the withdrawal position?
Lord Bates
That was the decision that Members of the other place came to in the debate on Monday. They introduced Amendment 14 to the Finance Bill, which called on the Government to consider the long-term costs and benefits of moving to a new trading relationship with the EU and the rest of the world. The Exchequer Secretary said:
“I am happy to confirm that the baseline for this comparison will be the status quo—that is, today’s institutional arrangements with the EU”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/18; col. 661.]
So we are doing what we have been asked to do by the other place.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in a statement last week, the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights said that Ministers were treating,
“the impact of Brexit on … poverty”,
as “an afterthought”. What assessment are the Government making of the likely impact of Brexit on the very high poverty levels in this country?
Lord Bates
Many people looked at the special rapporteur’s response, but also at the fact that the number of people in poverty has been steadily falling, that the number of children in poverty has been steadily falling, that employment is at record levels, that growth is on the up, that inflation is on the down, that our exports are rising and that growth and opportunity are there for jobs and education—which are the best routes out of poverty.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, can I just clarify something? Is it not the case that people such as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the CBI, are only now cosying up to the deal proposed because they are absolutely scared—I was about to say “something” scared, but I had better not—of the alternative of no deal? The reality is that, all around the country, a momentum—if noble Lords will excuse the word—is growing in favour of a people’s vote. In a democracy, three years after a previous referendum, and now that we know what the conditions are and what the whole process involves, what is wrong with giving the people another say?
Lord Bates
In a democracy we had a people’s vote, which was the referendum—and the Government were re-elected on another people’s vote.
Lord Bates
Both the noble Lord’s party and mine stood on a platform of honouring the people’s vote that took place in 2016. We are now on the brink of an agreement which can remove the uncertainty so that this country can move forward, and that is why we are supporting it.
Lord Deben (Con)
Would my noble friend reconsider that answer? After all, we had an election, and then two and half years later we decided that there was a chance for the people to have another vote on that. So merely to say that we have had a vote is not to say that we should never have a vote again. Is not the problem that the deal that has been done puts Britain into a significantly worse position than we are in as a member of the European Union?
Lord Bates
No, I do not accept that premise. If that were the case, we would not still be the number one location in Europe for foreign direct investments, or judged by Forbes to be the number one place to do business in 2018, which we are, and our exports would not be rising. The reality is that people want to remove the uncertainty, and to do that, we need to get behind this deal and get it done.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, if Parliament cannot find a solution to this problem in relation to the European Union, is it necessary to have the delay and likely disagreement of another vote? The last vote was of course a people’s vote, and to describe the next one as a people’s vote does not seem to be a particularly advantageous description. However, if Parliament cannot solve this problem, surely the next thing to do is to propose a Motion that we stay in the European Union?
Lord Bates
I was with my noble and learned friend all the way until just before the end. There will be a meaningful vote, which we promised and which will happen some time in December, and then this place and the other place can make their views known on the proposed agreement. I very much hope that they will come in behind it and behind the Prime Minister so that we can move on and see it implemented.
Saudi Arabia: Human Rights
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the outcome of their recent talks with the government of Saudi Arabia about human rights in that country.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the UK regularly discusses human rights with the Government of Saudi Arabia, including individual cases. Saudi Arabia remains a Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights priority country, as detailed in the annual Human Rights & Democracy Foreign and Commonwealth Office report. The Foreign Secretary travelled to Saudi Arabia to discuss a range of issues, including the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and we work with international partners to raise issues through the international system.
Lord Hoyle (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but Saudi Arabia continues to detain people without charge for indefinite periods and—as she said, Khashoggi was murdered in the consulate in Turkey—in addition to that, it continues to oppress people in every sense of the word. Why do we continue to dither and pussyfoot about with this aristocratic, reactionary and despicable regime? Why do we not impose sanctions on it?
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I can understand there is a range of passionately felt views about Saudi Arabia. Certainly, the United Kingdom has always regarded that country as an important ally for reasons that I know the noble Lord will understand. Equally, as with a relationship with any ally or friend, we feel able to express frankly our concerns. The Foreign Secretary, on his recent visit to Saudi Arabia, made very clear his concerns across a range of issues, not least the very distressing situation of Mr Khashoggi’s murder. We regularly raise with Saudi Arabia our concerns about human rights, and the noble Lord will be aware that the recent United Nations universal periodic review of Saudi Arabia took place on 5 November. He will know that a very strongly worded letter went from the UK permanent representative with a number of recommendations, all of which had at their heart respect for and implementation of human rights.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government, like the United States Government and the French Government, have actually received the tapes of the recording of Mr Khashoggi’s murder in the consulate? What conclusions have they come to about those tapes? Is the Minister aware that the Saudi authorities have named the people whom they think were responsible for Mr Khashoggi’s murder? Will the Government monitor the trial of those people to make sure that it is fully transparent and that those people are not executed as a cover-up for somebody else?
Baroness Goldie
In relation to my noble friend’s first question, we do not comment on intelligence matters, as I think he will understand. Given the recent disclosures by Saudi Arabia in relation to the court proceedings against 11 people, the United Kingdom Government will monitor carefully how that trial proceeds. It is a sovereign, independent country with an independent justice system, but we will watch carefully what takes place. The noble Lord will be aware that we have said repeatedly that we are totally opposed to the use of the death penalty in any circumstances.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, as revealed in this morning’s news, President Trump has made it clear that, as far as he is concerned, considerations of trade are more important than human rights in Saudi Arabia. Can the Minister confirm that our Government do not share the same callous view?
Baroness Goldie
If the noble Lord is suggesting that, for some reason, the UK would prioritise trade over human rights, that would absolutely not happen. The relationships that we build with countries, including Saudi Arabia, through trade and security links and through bringing together institutions such as educational research establishments allow us to make greater progress with those countries on the issue of human rights.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, following that question, is the Minister as sickened as I am by President Trump’s position that jobs would be at stake if he held Saudi Arabia to account? Does she see a read-across to the case that we have heard about today of Matthew Hedges, who was jailed for life after a five-minute trial in the UAE? Does she agree that human rights must be defended whatever our apparent economic interest?
Baroness Goldie
Human rights must always be defended, and I have already made clear both in my initial response to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, and in my subsequent answers the huge importance that we attach to human rights. This is not just a token importance but an importance underpinned by the actions that we take and the discussions that we have and the things that we attempt to do. We are regarded as being a very prominent global player in that respect. It is absolutely vital that we are proud of what the United Kingdom does in that field. We endeavour, whenever possible, to raise these issues and to do so in a constructive fashion.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch highlighted the torture of human rights activists in prison in Saudi Arabia. Last night, I met representatives from Reprieve, which announced that the death penalties on 12 human rights activists—people standing up for their human rights—have been confirmed. Will the Minister tell us today that the United Kingdom Government will make a public statement condemning those death penalties, which I understand could take place today or tomorrow?
Baroness Goldie
We have been clear about our concern regarding these 12 men; we are extremely concerned about reports that these executions may be imminent. We have raised these concerns with the Saudi authorities as recently as 20 November. As I say, the UK opposes the death penalty in all respects. The other issue that the noble Lord raises is a very distressing one; I think he is referring to the allegations of torture of female activists. Of course we are concerned about these allegations. It is a horrible situation, and we consistently and unreservedly condemn torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. We have raised these concerns and these cases at ministerial level with the Saudi authorities a number of times, and we will continue to do so following these allegations.
Cyberattacks
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect the United Kingdom’s critical infrastructure from cyberattacks.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, ensuring that our critical national infrastructure—CNI—is secure and resilient against cyberattack is at the heart of our 2016 national cybersecurity strategy. The National Cyber Security Centre we established has improved our understanding of the threat and provided a unified source of advice and support. We have also strengthened regulatory frameworks across much of the CNI to ensure that cyber risk is managed in the national interest.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
I hear what the Minister says, but I do not think he will satisfy the committee. It defined the Government’s current position as,
“long on aspiration and short on delivery”.
It says that the Government have failed to match the increasing threat with improved cyber resilience in both the public and private sectors and that it finds a lack of expertise to provide credible insurance. It would like to see a Minister appointed to ensure that there is capacity. Putting this right will require a lot more than money and good intentions. Will the Government take steps to carry out the report’s proposals?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord will be aware that this is a substantial report published two days ago by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, with 22 senior Members of both Houses. It has 10 major recommendations and the Government will want to respond to those in due course. The noble Lord quoted a little from the report and, just to add some balance, may I also quote from it? It said:
“Many of those who submitted written evidence … welcomed the step change in Government approach in the 2016 NCSS, with some describing the strategy—and the activity it underpins—as world-leading. This appears to be borne out by the notable level of international interest in the UK’s approach to cyber security”.
That gives a somewhat more balanced response than what the noble Lord quoted. There are many recommendations. One is that there should be one Minister; the committee wants what it calls a collective mind—a somewhat Orwellian concept. If we look at the building blocks of national security, we have GCHQ, which is under the Foreign Office; the Home Office, with overall responsibility for protecting the citizen if there is a cyberattack; the Ministry of Defence, which is in charge of offensive cybersecurity; and the Cabinet Office, which is in charge of CNI. It is very difficult to have a collective mind. What is important is having a collective strategy that all the Government agree to, underpinned by substantial resources and supervised by the National Security Council, chaired by the Prime Minister. That is more important than having what the committee calls a collective mind.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in last month’s debate on cybersecurity, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, in an authoritative speech, mentioned that the former Attorney-General, Jeremy Wright, had made clear that existing international law, including the UN charter, covers the cyber activities of states; this was the view not just of British experts but of Chinese and Russian experts in 2015. In his reply, the Minister outlined some activities round the Commonwealth that sought to exploit this international law but was uncharacteristically undefined about which other institutions the Government are working on. Which other international institutions are the Government working with which are seeking to exploit existing international law to combat this state-sponsored cybercrime?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord cited the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. In that debate, he said that Britain is very fortunate to have a world-leading centre of excellence in the National Cyber Security Centre. We believe that the existing legislation is adequate. We co-operate with a range of international partners— Five Eyes and others. I hope the noble Lord will understand that the Government want to reflect on the recommendations in the report and will respond in due course, including to the legal issues that the noble Lord has just raised.
Baroness Couttie (Con)
My Lords, what would be the impact of a no-deal Brexit on cybersecurity in this country?
Lord Young of Cookham
The Government have made it absolutely clear that we want to maintain the broadest possible co-operation with our EU partners. We want to continue to share information with security institutions in the EU. We want to go on, with them, to develop cyber resilience so that we can continue to protect our collective security, values and democratic institutions. We believe that it is in their interests, as much as ours, that this should happen, irrespective of what happens to Brexit.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that GCHQ has recently said that it can no longer guarantee the security of UK circuits that have Huawei equipment in them. How are we to take this forward now, bearing in mind that removing all Huawei gear from our systems is almost impossible, as is moving towards 5G without involving Huawei? We need a Minister in the Cabinet Office responsible for this.
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord raises an important issue: how one balances the need for inward investment and to have cutting-edge technology available without jeopardising the security of our institutions. He will know that we have a mitigation strategy to deal with Huawei, which is advised by NCSC—the National Cyber Security Centre. Our approach makes sure that, where we use equipment supplied by overseas countries, our security is not compromised. The mitigation strategy is kept under constant review.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee. Further to the noble Baroness’s question, in the event of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, being unsuccessful and our leaving the European Union next year, will we continue to abide by the EU network and information systems directive? If so, how will we continue to make sure that it is kept in line with the situation in Europe? Will we be part of the intelligence system associated with it?
Lord Young of Cookham
The answer to the first question is yes. We implemented the NIS directive in May this year, one of the first countries so to do. We will continue to honour the directive after 29 March next year. On the broader question about the future relationship, I can only refer the noble Lord to what I said a few moments ago about the Government’s intention to maintain broad co-operation and that it is in the EU’s interests as much as ours that that should continue.
Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made yesterday in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a statement on the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. The UK has a proud history of supporting the use of open data. Indeed, there has been a huge programme of work in recent years to make sure we are promoting the open and transparent use of data. The Government are in a privileged position, as we collect a vast quantity of high-quality data while delivering public services. As the UK moves rapidly towards a data-driven economy, we have an opportunity to improve decision-making in many areas.
The Government have already published over 44,000 datasets. This unprecedented openness has created many benefits. First, it has made the Government more accountable and transparent. Secondly, it can improve the effectiveness of public services. Thirdly, it has created the potential for new businesses to thrive. By making our data available to the public, we have been able to fuel businesses and applications that make life better and easier. All this has paid dividends.
We are now ranked joint first in the world on the open data barometer, an achievement of which we can justly be proud. While open data is something we must aspire to, we also need to use it in a safe and ethical manner. The rise of artificial intelligence-driven products and services have posed new questions that will impact on us all. What are the ethical implications of using technology to determine someone’s likelihood of reoffending?
Is it right to use a programme powered by AI to make hiring decisions? Can it ever be right to have an algorithm influence who should be saved in a car crash? These are no longer questions for science fiction but real questions that require clear and definite answers, where possible from policymakers. That is why we have established the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, because ethics and innovation are not mutually exclusive. Strong ethics can be a driver of innovation. It is our intention that the centre become a world-class advisory body to make sure that data and AI deliver the best possible outcomes for society, in support of their ethical and innovative use.
Following a consultation over the summer on the activities and work of the new centre, we are pleased to publish our response today. This is the first body of its kind to be established anywhere in the world and represents a landmark moment for data ethics in the UK and internationally. Throughout the consultation, respondents recognised the urgent need for the centre and there was widespread support for its objectives: to advise government on the necessary policy and regulatory action and to empower industry through the development of best practice.
In turn, we can build public trust in data-driven technologies and make the most of the opportunities they present for society. We have announced that Roger Taylor will chair the board. Roger has a background in consumer protection, founded Dr Foster—a healthcare data company—and is a passionate advocate for using data to improve lives. I know that he will do an excellent job. We have today announced the board members who will support Roger in this essential work. The board will include: Lord Winston, a world-renowned expert in fertility and genetics; Kriti Sharma, vice-president of AI at Sage and a leading global voice on data ethics; and Dame Patricia Hodgson, who was chair of Ofcom and brings a wealth of experience of regulatory affairs.
The board will bring together some of our greatest minds and their immense and varied experience to tackle these important issues. Data is the fuel of any digital economy, and trust in that data is fundamental. As a nation we have always been pioneers and advocates of transparency and freedom, and we will keep applying these values as we look at how we can make the most of the data that is multiplying in scale and sophistication.
The great challenge of the digital age is to ensure that data is used safely, ethically and, where possible, transparently. If we do that, we can help to power new technologies that will make life better and solve issues that are currently of grave concern. This is truly within our grasp and if we work together, we can make it happen.
I commend my Statement to the House”.
I follow the Statement by saying that I think the House will be pleased to know that, in addition to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, the board will include my noble friend Baroness Rock and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who were members of the House of Lords Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made elsewhere. He was present for part of the debate on artificial intelligence on Monday. On reflection, it is a bit surprising that the Government were not able to accelerate the announcement of this new body. It would have helped a lot in that debate. No doubt the tyranny of the grid is to blame again, but many of us would have felt the benefit had we known, not least, that the membership of the board had been enhanced by those Members of your Lordships’ House already referred to.
To go back in history a bit, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation came out of amendments we proposed during the passage of the Data Protection Bill, but it was built on excellent work by the Royal Society and others. We should pay tribute to the groundwork that led to today’s announcement. Those amendments had a lot of support from around the House and would have gone into the Bill had we been able to push them further, but we could not get them within the bounds of the Bill’s framing. We should say clearly that the model we had in mind then was the independent Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. In preparing the thinking in this new area of advanced technology and data processing and protection, one needed a carefully balanced body that could regulate in the context of difficult ethical issues raised by research and development.
I will now ask a number of questions about the body itself, and I hope that the Minister will respond, in writing later if not now. The body was originally intended to be an independent statutory body, but it is not because no powers have yet been established. What is the progress on that? The reports I have read suggest that that is still an objective of the Government, although they are making a virtue of the fact that it is an advisory committee in the interim period. In some senses, they will probably be judging its success, which is a bit worrying given that the whole benefit would be that it was independent of government, long-term and able to look without fear or favour at the big issues. If it is an advisory committee of the department, how independent will it be in practice? Is funding secured? Can it spend what it needs to get the research and advice it needs? How much of the original thinking about the HFEA remains? As an advisory committee, can it request information? One problem is the difficulty of extracting information from the behemoths that populate the international information society.
The press release rightly describes the membership as “stellar”. Given the names already mentioned here, I think we should recognise that. I confess that my application was weeded out very early in the game. This was unfortunate, because I would have been delighted to be part of that. Having seen the full list and heard why they were chosen, it is clear that the right decisions have been reached and I bear no malice to those responsible—honest. If the membership question comes up later, I am still around.
In the absence of the new centre starting up, we have only two or three areas of activity. We have a statement as a result of the consultations that took place. It talks about the focuses being to provide clear guidance and regulation and to lead debate about how data can be used in the future. But there are still some problems that need to be resolved, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments. The AI report we discussed at length in a very good debate on Monday, when there were notable speeches from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Browne, shows the range of issues that are going to be up for discussion. These are very abstruse areas of intellectual activity such as ethics and the nature of machines—whether they are responsible for their actions and, if so, how any redress can be obtained. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, posed questions about intelligent weapons and what controls must be placed on them. It is a very stretching agenda. All we know is that issues currently in the list include data trusts, algorithms and consumer experiences. I do not think there will be a shortage of those. Can the Minister explain what the process will be? I gather an overall strategy document will be revealed.
There are some concerns about the balance between advice and regulatory action. I think the plan would be for advice to be offered to government and regulatory action to be taken by existing or other bodies. Could we have confirmation of that? There is a question about the balance between ethics and innovation. Clearly, innovations are difficult to support if they raise big ethical issues too quickly; they often need to be tested over time and analysed. It would be useful if there were a way forward on that. Of course, there is the whole question of how the Government intend to treat public data, its use and value for money, and the extent to which it will be available.
Lastly, the new centre, which I wish extremely well, enters a rather crowded space with the Information Commissioner’s Officer, Ofcom and the CMA, all of which have statutory functions in this area, but perhaps I may counsel that also to come are the Alan Turing Institute, which is now up and running, and the Open Data Institute. Therefore, there will be a need for some time for this whole process to settle down and for leadership from the Government on how it will work.
The responses to the consultation showed a clear public wish for consistency and coherence, and I hope that in that process there will be room for consultation. I do not wish the new body to be a proselytiser for data or indeed for artificial intelligence, but there is a difference between proselytising and being in an explanatory mode, reassuring people and explaining to them the benefits as well as the risks of this new technology. The centre needs to be public facing and fully engaged in that process, and I wish it well.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. He was missed in the debate on Monday. I have had the benefit of reading the Government’s response to the consultation on the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. I share the enthusiasm for the centre’s creation, as did the Select Committee, and, now, for the clarification of the centre’s role, which will be very important in ensuring public trust in artificial intelligence. I am also enthusiastic about the appointments—described, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, as “stellar” in the Government’s own press release. In particular, I congratulate Members of this House and especially the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who contributed so much to our AI Select Committee. I am sure that both will keep the flame of our conclusions alive. I am delighted that we will also see a full strategy for the centre emerging early next year.
I too have a few questions for the Minister and I suspect that, in view of the number asked by me and by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, he will much prefer to write. Essentially, many of them relate to the relations between the very crowded landscape of regulatory bodies and the government departments involved.
Of course¸ the centre is an interim body. It will eventually be statutory but, as an independent body, where will the accountability lie? To which government department or body will it be accountable? Will it produce its own ethics framework for adoption across a wide range of sectors? Will it advocate such a framework internationally, and through what channels and institutions? Who will advise the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS on the use of health data in AI applications? Will it be the centre or the ICO, or indeed both? Will the study of bias, which has been announced by the centre, explore the development of audit mechanisms to identify and minimise bias in algorithms?
How will the centre carry out its function of advising the private sector on best practice, such as ethics codes and advisory boards? What links will there be with the Competition and Markets Authority over the question of data monopolies, which I know the Government and the CMA are both conscious of? In their consideration of data trust, will the government Office for Artificial Intelligence, which I see will be the responsible body, also look at the benefits of and incentives for hubs of all things? These are beginning to emerge as a very important way of protecting private data.
What links will there be with other government departments in giving advice on the application of AI and the use of datasets? The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to lethal autonomous weapons, which emerged as a major issue in our debate on Monday. What kind of regular contact will there be with government departments—in particular, with the Ministry of Defence? One of the big concerns of the Select Committee was: what formal mechanisms for co-ordinating policy and action between the Office for Artificial Intelligence, the AI Council, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation and the ICO will there be? That needs to be resolved.
Finally, the centre will have a major role in all the above in its new studies of bias and micro-targeting, and therefore the big question is: will it be adequately resourced? What will its budget be? In the debate on Monday, I said that we need to ensure that we maintain the momentum in developing our national strategy, and this requires government to will the means.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am tempted to say that I will write, but I will try to answer some of the questions, and I will write regarding some that I do not get around to. I was in at the beginning of the debate on AI and I listened to the noble Lord’s speech.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Not everyone would agree with that, but I did indeed listen to it. I have read that AI is a joint responsibility with BEIS, and my noble friend Lord Henley coped more than adequately, so I do not think that I really was missed.
There was a great deal of support for this innovation—the centre—both in the response to the consultation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, in proceedings on the then Data Protection Bill, so I am grateful for that today, but I accept the very reasonable questions. On the centre’s independence as it stands now and its statutory establishment, I say that we have deliberately set this up as an advisory body so that it can consider some of the difficult issues that noble Lords have raised. Policy is the Government’s responsibility, so there should not be any confusion about who is held accountable for policy—and it is not the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. When this has been established, when we have seen how it has worked and when we have addressed the questions of the crowded space that both noble Lords mentioned, it is our intention to put this on a statutory basis. Then we will see how it has worked in practice. When it comes to putting it on a statutory basis, I have no doubt that there will be lots of back and forth in Committee and things like that on the exact definitions and its exact role.
There are some differences from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, although of course that was a particularly successful body. One of the main differences was that a lot of those things were considered in advance of the science, if you like, and before the science was put into place. With AI, it is here and now and operating, so we do not have a chance to sit back, think about it in theory and then come up with legislation or regulation. We are dealing with a moving target, so we want to get things going.
As far as I am aware—I will check and write to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—the centre has no specific powers to demand information. That is, of course, something that we can look at when it comes to being on a statutory basis.
I am sorry that the application for membership by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was not accepted. There can be only one reason: he spends so much time on the Front Bench that he would not have time, because we expect the directors to spend two to three days a month attending this, so it is a very large work commitment.
As noble Lords will know, the work plan includes two initial projects, which were announced in last year’s Budget: micro-targeting and algorithm bias. We expect the centre, in discussion with the Secretary of State, to come up with a work plan by spring 2019. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned, there is a tension, if you like, between ethics and innovation, but we are very keen that it consider both because we have to be aware of the potential for innovation, which is constrained in some cases. We would not want a situation where the opportunities for AI for this country are avoided. As the report by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made clear, there are tremendous opportunities in this sector. We are aware of the tension, but it is a good tension for the centre to consider.
Both noble Lords talked about the crowded space in this area. We expect the centre to produce memorandums of understanding to outline how it relates to bodies such as the AI Council, which has a slightly different focus and is more about implementation of the AI sector deal than considering the ethics of artificial intelligence. We understand that they need to work together and expect the centre to come back on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about accountability. The centre will be accountable to the Secretary of State for the DCMS. That is clear. He will agree its work plan. Of course, in terms of independence, once he has established that work plan, what the centre says will not be up to him, so there is independence there. We included in our response that the Government will be expected to reply within six months, so there is a time limit on that. It will apply to all government departments, not just the DCMS. The Ministry of Defence and the department of health have obvious issues and the centre can provide advice to them as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether the centre, when it considers bias, would include audit mechanisms. It absolutely might. It is not really for us to say exactly what the centre will consider. In fact, that would be contrary to its independence, having been given the subject to think about. In our response we said some of the things that might be considered, such as audit mechanisms.
There is an obvious issue about competition, which the House of Lords Select Committee mentioned. Work is going on. The Chancellor commissioned the Furman review to look at that and we expect the centre to come up with a discussion on how it will work with the Competition and Markets Authority, but obviously competition is mainly to do with the Competitions and Markets Authority.
At the moment, the body is resourced by the DCMS. In the 2017 Budget, it was provided with £9 million in funding over three years. We expect that to be sufficient but, clearly, we will have to provide adequate resources to do an adequate job.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for the Statement and his responses. I am delighted that one of my successors as Bishop of Oxford has been appointed to the centre’s board. I know that with his experience and background he will make a very valuable contribution to it.
Is there an academic moral philosopher on the board? I ask as a former member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the HFEA. It was always thought valuable, particularly with the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, to have a philosopher or two on board. It is not that they will come up with a better answer than anybody else—their judgment is neither better nor worse than anybody else’s—but an academic philosopher can tease out unexamined assumptions. So many of these agreements and disagreements on ethics are about the assumptions that need to be teased out and looked at. I have not had a chance to look at the document yet, I am afraid, but perhaps I could ask that question.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am glad to say that there will be. Professor Luciano Floridi is Professor of Philosophy and Ethics of Information at the University of Oxford—so another Oxford man.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, is it not correct that the centre’s name is the wrong way round? It ought to be the advisory committee on digital innovation and ethics, because the innovation will drive the ethics rather than the other way round.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The board of the centre will be able to cope with whichever way round the wording is. It will deal with the balance and the tensions between ethics and innovation—and indeed innovation and ethics.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, yesterday evening the British-American Parliamentary Group and Ditchley met to discuss these topics. It was an interesting meeting, but it did reveal how readily innovation drives ethics. I say this as an academic philosopher, and it is quite important. The innovation questions are of great importance, but they are not the only questions, and I hope that steps will be taken to ensure that there is suitable rigour in the analysis of the ethical issues. The debate is full of pitfalls and inadequacies, including phrases such as “communication ethics” and “data ethics”, which ultimately mean nothing. Ethics is about what you do: it is not about data and communication. So I hope that there will be room for that sort of rigour on this advisory—and ultimately statutory—body.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree with the noble Baroness. In dealing with modern technology, we often forget the very important point she makes. Ethics is about how you live your life and deal with things in a way that has a moral basis. I absolutely accept that, in dealing with modern technology and especially things such as AI, ethics is a very important component. That is precisely why they have also included not just technical people but parliamentarians and professional philosophers, to consider and to make sure that those aspects are given sufficient weight.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 21st November 2018
(5 years, 5 months 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-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (20 Nov 2018)
18:24 - Division on Amendment 27 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 188 - Amendment 27 agreed.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
“Part 8 contains transitory provision.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, before I introduce this first group of what I hope are uncontroversial and technical amendments, I want to express my sincere thanks to all noble Lords who have been involved in a good deal of hard work between Committee and today in order to get the Bill into better shape. When we set out on this process at Second Reading, noble Lords had some concerns about the Bill, which crystallised in Committee. I think we have made a good deal of progress since then, which could not have happened without their contribution. I hope we are able to make similar degrees of progress today.
The amendments in this group straightforwardly make technical changes to the Bill. Amendment 1 reflects that transitory, or temporary, provision related to 16 and 17-year olds will be included in a new Part 8 of the schedule. Amendment 10 inserts a definition of “clinical commissioning group”. Amendment 148 removes an unnecessary provision regarding statutory instruments from the Bill. Clause 5(3) reflects that regulations under Clause 5 will be made by statutory instrument. However, Clause 5(7) already provides that regulations under Clause 5 are to be made by statutory instrument, so the words in Clause 5(3) are superfluous. I hope everyone can follow that—I promise it is straightforward and technical. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“(1A) For the purpose of paragraph 2(1)(b), arrangements which give rise to the deprivation of the cared-for person’s liberty are those in which—(a) the cared-for person is subject to confinement in a particular place for a not negligible period of time; and(b) the cared-for person has not given valid consent to their confinement.(1B) For the purpose of paragraph 2(1A)(a), a cared-for person is subject to confinement where—(a) the cared-for person is prevented from removing himself or herself permanently in order to live where and with whom he or she chooses; and(b) the dominant reason for the deprivation of liberty is the continuous supervision and control of the cared-for person, and not treatment for their underlying condition.”
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my interests in the register. Concern has been raised repeatedly throughout this Bill, both in this House and outside, that there is no statutory definition of what constitutes a deprivation of liberty. That is what this group is about. My amendment is designed to provide practitioners, families and the cared-for person with an agreed interpretation that is unambiguous as to where deprivation of liberty is enacted and a clear sense of understanding of to whom it should actually apply. Including a definition in the Bill would allow guidance and information to be developed for families and practitioners to allow them to make what I would call a real-world assessment of whether the care arrangements they are putting in place when their loved one lacks capacity amount to a deprivation of liberty. In many cases this will allow them to steer clear of depriving someone of their liberty, quite often unwittingly, because the line would be that much clearer.
I welcome the report on the Bill from the Joint Committee on Human Rights which was published on 26 October. It addresses clearly the need for a definition of the term “deprivation of liberty”, and of course raised other concerns as well. Unless we have a clear definition which is supported by parents, families will be at risk of the courts interpreting their personal situation in different ways. I know from the many briefings and correspondence I have received that this is strongly supported by the sector. Having looked at the report, noble Lords will be aware that the definition I have proposed is derived from the JCHR report. I believe that in fact two definitions are offered in the report and later we will hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who is proposing the other definition. I am sure that he will put forward good arguments for doing so, given that he was a very distinguished member of the Joint Committee.
I have gone for the definition that I am proposing because I think it is simpler and easier. I think it best captures the recommendations made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, in the Cheshire West case. She was clear that a definition was necessary in future primary legislation. As we have noted many times during the passage of this Bill, the test, which was referred to in the Joint Committee’s recommendation, references the case taken by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, Cheshire West and Chester Council v P in 2014. The key sentence she noted was that the person concerned,
“was under continuous supervision and control and not free to leave”.
Unless we have a statutory definition in the Bill, I strongly suspect that the question of what actually constitutes a deprivation of liberty will continue to have to be determined by reference to Article 5 of the ECHR and indeed will continue to come back to court for further clarification.
I shall say briefly that while it would be possible to include a definition in the code of practice rather than in the Bill itself, I do not think that that will satisfy a court. The best form of protection would come from the inclusion of a definition in the Bill itself. We are looking at this issue again in primary legislation partly because recent court rulings, including the Cheshire West case which I have already referred to, have radically changed who deprivation of liberty applies to and, frankly, have substantially increased the number of people it covers; hence the reasons we are here.
I hope very much that the Minister, who has listened carefully and, if I may say, responded constructively to many of the arguments that have been put forward both in Committee and since, will have something positive to say on this point. I recognise that the definition could do with some more work and I am sure that the Bill team could look at it and come back at Third Reading. However, if there are any fears of unintended consequences, my view is that a well-drafted definition will pose considerably less risk than having no definition at all, which leaves patients and practitioners exposed to different legal interpretations and subsequent consequences.
I conclude by saying that without a definition in the Bill, any future interpretation by the courts could lead to a wide range of outcomes for cared-for people and their families which could undermine the very essence of the new LPS scheme. That is what this Bill is all about. It seeks to provide clarity, but without a definition it simply will not do so. I beg to move.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the expectation about my contribution to this debate, which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, just referred to. I am only too conscious that I shall disappoint her, but I will do my best.
First, I must disclose an interest. I have a relative whom the Bill may affect. I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, was quite right in everything she said about the committee’s report, which has something useful to say in connection to this. I hope the Minister will agree with that. I see him nodding his head and telling me that it is so.
I shall focus on the second amendment proposed by the committee, which supplements the one moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. It is designed to limit the unintended harm caused as a consequence of the Cheshire West case, which is not easy. That harm takes two forms: first, it has resulted in a huge increase in the number of people who will be caught by the Bill; secondly, it means that people who do not need the precise benefits normally available to those in their position are dragged into that protection to their disadvantage.
I shall try to describe the persons concerned. They are people who have problems that would fall within the context of the Bill, but are residing, possibly in their home or some other institution, somewhere where they are perfectly content and well looked-after. There is no problem in their case. I do not think it necessary to expand the burdens on the Treasury caused by people in their condition by including them, unless it can be shown that there is a real necessity. Although the language of the amendment proposed by the committee, to which I am speaking, is complex, if one reads it carefully it does not give rise to any difficulties, but it could have the ameliorating effects to which I have referred. For those reasons and those the noble Baroness has given, I commend this amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I should like to comment on these amendments. Before I do that, I thank the Minister on behalf of everyone for listening, as well as for his willingness to meet Peers and to move on the things that had caused enormous concern to many of us.
I have a couple of concerns regarding these amendments. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for trying to get us back to a definition. I completely agree that if we do not have a definition, the matter will go to court and we will end up back in a circle that we do not want to be in. The problem I see is the non-negligible period, which will be really difficult to define. If somebody is in a confined space for even 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour, that could be absolutely terrifying for them and completely unjustifiable. We have a difficulty in trying to use time as a measure, but I understand why it is there as well.
In his amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, certainly includes the principle of consent, which means that there should be information that the person has capacity and that their care and treatment are voluntary. I was a little worried, however, that his proposed new paragraph 2(1B)(d) in the amendment, which would require two clinicians to confirm in writing, rather ran counter to the principles set out in Part 1 of the Mental Capacity Act itself, Section 1(2) of which states:
“A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity”.
It almost turns itself on its head if you must have somebody to verify that they have capacity.
I note that in his letter to us, the Minister stressed the importance of supporting liberty as much as possible and valid consent wherever possible. Would the Minister be prepared to say that we can work on this between now and Third Reading? If we can reach a definition that seems right by then, we will have done the whole community a great service.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for bringing forward the amendments. I can see that the Government have a decision to make about which way to go on them.
Listening to the Joint Committee on Human Rights is always a good idea. We discussed a statutory definition during the previous stage of the Bill, when the Minister repeated that he,
“should like to take some time between now and Report to consider the opinion expressed by noble Lords and in the report of the Joint Committee about the benefits of a statutory definition”.—[Official Report, 5/9/18; col. 1849.]
I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is thanking the Minister already but it may be slightly premature. I know what she means, but let us wait until the end of the next day and a half. It is important that the Minister shares with us now where that thinking has led him.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My Lords, I am more than happy to do so. I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for tabling their amendments and for precipitating this incredibly important debate. As has been set out, Amendment 2, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, states that the liberty protection safeguards apply only to,
“arrangements which give rise to the deprivation of the cared-for person’s liberty”,
when,
“the cared-for person is subject to confinement in a particular place for a not negligible period of time … and … the cared-for person has not given valid consent”.
The amendment explains that someone is confined when they are,
“prevented from removing himself or herself permanently … and … the dominant reason for the deprivation of liberty is the continuous supervision and control of the cared-for person, and not treatment for their underlying condition”.
Amendment 4, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, also states that a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of liberty protection safeguards is where,
“the cared-for person is subject to confinement in a particular place for a not negligible period of time … and … the cared-for person has not given valid consent to their confinement”.
The amendment goes on to define “valid consent”, stating in particular that valid consent has been given when,
“the cared-for person is capable of expressing their wishes and feelings … has expressed their persistent contentment with their care and treatment arrangements … there is no coercion involved in the implementation of the … arrangements”,
and it is,
“confirmed in writing by two professionals, one of whom must not be involved in the implementation of the cared-for person’s … arrangements”.
The intention behind the amendments is to create a statutory definition of the deprivation of liberty, as has been discussed. I note that the amendments were influenced by the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I both applaud and welcome. We are aware, and the Law Commission’s consultation confirmed, that there is real confusion on the ground over the application of the so-called acid test and determining whether a person has been deprived of their liberty. In some cases, that has led to blanket referrals and applications for authorisations being made where there may be no deprivation of liberty at all.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out, I promised to think about this issue and we have given it a great deal of thought. Like other noble Lords, we have reached the conclusion that deprivation of liberty should be clarified in statute. However, we want to get the definition right and make sure that it is compatible with Article 5 of the ECHR. I agree that the aims of the amendments are laudable. As I said, the Government support providing clarity in the Bill. However, as I am sure all noble Lords appreciate, this is a complex and technical issue, and we have to make sure that any amendment is compliant with Article 5.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out one particular concern around the use of the term “not negligible … time”. The point I want to make is much more technical, but it serves to introduce how difficult this issue is. I hope noble Lords will bear with me as I explain it; it is incredibly important. We believe that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, would not have the intended effect of defining deprivation of liberty, but would instead limit the application of liberty protection safeguards to those who fall within the respective definitions.
Section 64(5) of the Mental Capacity Act defines “deprivation of liberty” as having the same meaning as in Article 5. The definitions in the amendments would not change this. Deprivations of liberty that fall outside those definitions would still be deprivations of liberty under Article 5, and would still need to be authorised in accordance with Article 5. However, because the liberty protection safeguards would not apply, authorisation would instead need to be sought in the Court of Protection, which, as we know, can be a cumbersome and distressing process for persons and their families, and would have significant cost implications for public bodies and the court system
Furthermore, the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, although closely resembling the proposal put forward by the JCHR, also seeks to determine what valid consent would mean, and we are worried that that would not work in the way intended, because the definition is very broad. Its consequence could be that a significant number of people currently subject to DoLS authorisation would be caught by the definition and excluded from the liberty protection safeguard system, and tens of thousands of people might need to seek authorisation from the Court of Protection. Again, I do not believe that anyone would want to see that outcome. I notice that the noble and learned Lord is shaking his head, so clearly there is some disagreement on this point. I use it, however, to illustrate that there is a concern that we get this right.
Lord Woolf
I was shaking my head because I do not want to see what the Minister suggested might be a consequence.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I will come to that. I am using that technical point to illustrate that there are concerns with the amendments as laid. We recognise the importance of this issue and the strength of feeling on it in the House. As I have said, I see merit in the argument for having this defined in statute, and I am sympathetic to that point of view. I can therefore give noble Lords some assurance, and confirm today not only that we are working on this matter, but that we intend to bring forward an amendment in the Commons to give effect to a definition. We want to work with all noble Lords and other stakeholders, and of course the JCHR, to ensure that we can table an effective amendment that achieves our shared aims and gains the level of consensus that we all want to achieve, and that we shall be able to lay it and have it agreed during the Commons stages of the Bill. I hope that in providing that commitment, I have been able to reassure noble Lords of the strength of our intentions. We absolutely want to do this, and we want to get it right. I still think it will take a bit more time, but I know that, working together, we can achieve that.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I thank the Minister very much for his response to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Tyler and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I acknowledge that he has listened to the arguments made in this House over the past few weeks. I understand why he cannot make a commitment to come back within the timescale of the Bill in this House. This is an important matter, and many different people have a great deal of expertise, practical knowledge, legal knowledge and so on, to put into the process of coming up with a definition, which will be extremely difficult.
Would the Minister therefore be so good as to write to noble Lords as soon as he can, setting out the timetable of the work the department intends to undertake and the people they intend to involve in discussions, which I hope will include practitioners, stakeholders and academics, medical experts and so on, as well as Members of your Lordships’ House who have reviewed the operation of the current law and found it deficient? Could he do that as soon as possible so that, when we come to consideration of Commons amendments when the Bill comes back to this place, we will be able to give this subject the attention it merits rather than the rather perfunctory consideration that we usually have to give to arguments that come back to us within a very technical parliamentary framework?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I am happy to give that commitment, bearing in mind that there is always uncertainty about the timing of Bills’ progress but, in terms of the work we will do to come up with the definition, I am more than happy to do that and to include estimates—I see the Chief Whip coming into the Chamber—of the timing of the further parliamentary stages.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
I thank the Minister for his full and helpful reply. This has been a good and important debate to start this afternoon’s debate. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to look at this. He has twice confirmed the Government’s position, which is that it is important that the definition is clarified and contained in the statute. That was the purpose of my amendment. He is right to say that this is complex and technical and that we need to get it right. I fully understand that that needs a bit of time. Although at one stage I hoped that this might be able to come back at Third Reading, I fully understand why he said that the Government will lay an amendment in the Commons stages, and I support my noble friend Lady Barker in her request for a letter setting out the timescale of the work and who will be involved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Meacher
“(1A) This Schedule does not apply to deprivation of liberty processes in a domestic setting, arrangements for which must be undertaken under the Care Act 2014.(1B) This Schedule does not apply to deprivation of liberty processes where a dominant reason for the deprivation of liberty is the treatment of an underlying condition covered by the Mental Health Act 2007, except in exceptional circumstances.”
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Murphy, who added her name to this amendment, apologises because she unfortunately cannot be here as she is not in the country.
Like other noble Lords, I thank the Minister for really listening to the serious points that have been made by noble Lords across the House and for taking things forward substantially since we started this work.
The two issues that I want to raise are, first, that it may be unhelpful to include within the LPS system cases where there may be a deprivation of liberty in a domestic setting and, secondly, that it may be helpful to all concerned if the Bill makes it clear as far as possible—and I know this is difficult—where the boundary lies between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act. I will discuss these issues in turn. Their only common feature is that they concern two groups of people whose deprivation of liberty issues might best be dealt with outside this Bill.
Turning to the question of people in domestic settings, we should probably start with the Supreme Court’s judgment in P v Cheshire West and Chester Council, which has been referred to many times, which set the acid test of when a deprivation of liberty is occurring. Importantly, it lowered the threshold so that deprivations of liberty can also occur in domestic settings. This is absolutely right. It is perfectly possible to envisage cases where abusive relatives may be depriving a family member of their liberty in an inappropriate, disproportionate and even cruel way. A system to deal with such situations is absolutely necessary—I am not questioning that for one minute—and that system must ultimately have a process involving access to a court to determine disputes. The question is what system is appropriate for such cases and how far it can go to try to avoid references to court wherever possible, because these things can be very distressing for relatives and others involved.
Your Lordships will be aware that some informal carers consider the LPS system to be too expensive and an intrusion on family life. My noble friend Lady Murphy and I are—I was going to say “inclined” to agree with them, but we actually very much agree with them. Which system would provide a proportionate and effective protection of the liberty of people in domestic settings is what this amendment is all about.
The British Association of Social Workers, which represents the best interest assessors and others involved in deprivation of liberty cases at present, proposes that a new statutory definition could exclude home situations and domestic arrangements from a deprivation of liberty, thus removing the current expensive practice whereby the Court of Protection has to authorise these to make them lawful. In this scenario, the safeguarding provisions of the Care Act 2014 would be drawn on to protect people’s liberty within domestic settings.
We hope that between the Lords and Commons stages of the Bill—I do not think anything can be done before Third Reading—the Government will consult on this question and come up with very clear amendments to this Bill and to the Care Act 2014 regulations in order to establish a proportionate and effective system to deal with liberty issues in domestic settings. Both will be necessary.
I will give an example to clarify the real importance of proportionality. Under the safeguarding procedures, an 85 year-old caring for her 89 year-old husband with severe dementia, who feels she can manage only if her husband stays in one room, will have a stream of people calling to assess the needs and potential risks which might be involved. Nine different people may be coming to the house—the poor woman does not know who they are or what they are there for. In our view, she should not have to deal with yet more bureaucracy if it can possibly be avoided. It can be avoided if the safe- guarding professionals are able to assess the deprivation of liberty issue alongside—and within the same visit as—the other assessments. The Government will need to consider the definition of “domestic setting” and to determine whether this includes supervised living arrangements, which, of course, are not care homes. Again, that is a matter on which we need to defer to the Government to work out between the two Chambers.
I turn now to the dividing line between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act, as amended by this Bill. Unlike DoLS, which are always based on the best interests of the individual, LPS may result in a person being deprived of their liberty, primarily where there is a risk of harm to others. In such cases, the best interests of the others who may be harmed must be taken fully into account, even at the risk of limiting the liberty, and indeed the best interests, of the individual who may cause the harm—one wants however to avoid that as far as possible. The two groups who come to mind are those with Lewy body dementia, and a small number of people suffering from autism. Sub-paragraph (1B) of our amendment would result in such cases being assessed under the Mental Health Act apart from in exceptional circumstances—I was persuaded that that was an important sub-paragraph to include within any amendment. These assessments would be done by people with experience of assessing risk resulting from disorders of the mind. They would be well equipped to assess deprivations of liberty and their necessity in these particular cases.
In my discussions with Sir Simon Wessely, who is leading the Mental Health Act review, and quite separately in a meeting with two of Sir Simon’s colleagues on the review, I came away clear that it would be helpful to flag up the need for further work on this issue. The Law Commission had proposed that,
“risk of harm to others”,
should be an additional possible reason for detention under their “necessary and proportionate” test, and this was explicitly written into their draft Bill. Interestingly, the Government omitted the relevant text from their Bill.
Recently, the Government said in passing that “risk to others” will be a basis for detention, but this will be set out in the code of practice. I hope the Minister will agree that this really is unsatisfactory, unless the code of practice sets out that detention on grounds of risk to others will not be dealt with in this Bill. One could probably do that in the code of practice, but not the opposite. Is that in fact what the Government have in mind?
This is the issue where the outcome of the Mental Health Act review could relate directly to this Bill. The review reports on 12 December, and no doubt the Government will know the conclusions some days before that. I urge the Minister to try to ensure that work is done to produce an amendment to this Bill, clarifying the position of these relatively small groups of people who might best be assessed under the Mental Health Act rather than under this legislation.
The issue of stigma was raised earlier, but even the Royal Family are trying to address stigma with regard to mental illness. One should not put groups of people under the wrong legislation as a method of dealing with stigma, as it will not deal with it.
As the Minister made clear in our meeting, the best interests test is clearly set out in the Mental Capacity Act, and that carries forward into the Bill. That is absolutely right and important, but this is the most powerful argument for excluding “risk to others” as a criterion for deprivation of liberty under the Bill. These two situations—deprivation of liberty issues in domestic settings and deprivation of liberty due to a risk to others—require an appropriate judicial body for determining challenges to authorisations of deprivation of liberty. The judicial body needs to be accessible to enable participation in the proceedings of the person concerned, the speedy and efficient determination of cases, and the desirability of including medical expertise within the panel deciding the cases, when that is necessary—but not when it is not, which is important.
I hope that the Government will consider widening the scope of mental health tribunals to include a limited number of mental capacity cases as discussed here. The tribunals could be named mental health and capacity tribunals. In many cases, the judge of such a tribunal could determine the case on the papers without the involvement of the full tribunal. Sir Simon made the point to me that we do not have sufficient psychiatrists in this country, and we do not want a great backlog to build up simply because there are not the people to do the job. He seems to think that we have an abundance of judges—that would have to be checked; I do not know about that. These two important issues have not been given adequate attention. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, we on these Benches recognise that the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Murphy, have been persistent in raising these issues throughout the course of the Bill. They are absolutely right that these issues have to be addressed and that they are not covered adequately; the briefings we have had suggest that they are not. The reason that possibly we have not been able to develop enough of a head of steam on this is that we have been focusing on other issues in the Bill, which we will come to. The Minister may not be able to resolve this immediately, but I hope that he will recognise its importance and bring forward a solution.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I express my gratitude to the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Murphy, for tabling this important amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pointed out, the effect of the amendment would be to ensure that liberty protection safeguards do not apply to a deprivation of liberty in a domestic setting, and that these should be dealt with under the Care Act. It further states that the schedule does not apply where the dominant reason for the deprivation of liberty of a person is for an underlying condition under the Mental Health Act.
The effect of the amendment as tabled would mean that people deprived of their liberty in domestic settings could not have that authorised through the liberty protection safeguards or the Court of Protection. Instead, their case would fall to be dealt with under the Care Act 2014. I appreciate that the intention is that in most cases deprivation of liberty would be avoided through care planning and safeguarding under the Act. But nevertheless, in some cases there will need to be an authorisation of a deprivation of liberty in domestic settings.
I absolutely sympathise with the noble Baroness’s intention to reduce wherever possible intrusions into family life; as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out, that has perhaps not been given sufficient time during the passage of the Bill so far, although it is nevertheless a significant issue. However, we have a concern with regard to the amendment as laid in that the Care Act does not in itself provide adequate Article 5 safeguards, and to rely on such a process could result in a real risk of incompatibility with convention rights.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her helpful comments and the Minister for his considered and careful response and for his commitment to give really serious consideration to both of these issues in the gap between the deliberations of this House and those of the other place. I sincerely want to thank the Minister for all that, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My Lords, as we move on to this group of amendments, which deals with the extension of liberty protection safeguards to 16 and 17 year-olds, I thank all noble Lords for reminding us from Second Reading onwards of the absence of this provision when compared with the Law Commission’s report. Of course, we had accepted in principle that we wanted to move on this issue, but we needed to resolve some complexities about how it should apply. We have now done so and have brought forward amendments. I am grateful to all noble Lords, stakeholders and others who have contributed to this process.
Let me just outline in more detail what these specific amendments cover. Amendment 5 extends the liberty protection safeguards system to 16 and 17 year-olds.
Amendments 20 and 22 take into account the different legislative arrangements already in place for cared-for people aged 16 to 17. This group of young people are likely to have either an education, health and care plan—an EHCP—in England, or an individual development plan—an IDP—or statement of special educational needs in Wales. Amendment 21 provides that, for those cared for in the community, the same local authority that maintains their plan will act as the responsible body for liberty protection safeguards. If the person has neither of these plans, the responsible body will be the local authority that is providing accommodation for the person, or otherwise named in a care order; in any other cases, it will be the local authority for the area in which the arrangements for that young person are mainly undertaken. This provision aims to provide continuity for the person and to make the process less burdensome for them and their family. The local authority in these cases will know them best and have more knowledge of their circumstances and will therefore be able to make sure that the arrangements are the most appropriate.
Those aged between 18 and 25 and in the scope of LPS may also have an education, health and care plan or an individual development plan. Amendment 19 clarifies the responsible local authority for this group. Amendments 7 and 18 state that the responsible body for those aged 18 to 25 should be the same local authority that maintains the education, health and care plan or individual development plan. This will provide clarity and consistency in their arrangements too.
Amendment 22 has the effect of clarifying who the responsible local authority is if none of the other specific provisions applies for those aged 16 and 17. Those 16 and 17 year-olds who are cared for mainly in hospital settings will have the same responsible body as those who are 18 or over, which is the NHS trust, local health board or CCG.
Amendment 23 defines education, health and care plans and individual development plans.
Amendment 134 makes provision in Wales for the transition to the new system, to support children and young people with special educational needs or additional learning needs. We are continuing to consider, in conjunction with the Welsh Government, whether all the cohorts in Wales are captured under the current amendments. If there is a need to do so, we will come forward with new amendments in the other place in order to capture other cohorts, if they are identified.
Although liberty protection safeguard authorisation records will be stand-alone documents, we have listened to advice from noble Lords and will make it clear in the code of practice that information in the LPS authorisation that is relevant to meeting a young person’s special educational needs or additional learning needs should be included in their EHC plan or IDP—sorry for the acronyms.
Over recent months, we have worked together across government and with stakeholders to develop these amendments so that the new system complements and strengthens existing safeguards for 16 and 17 year-olds who lack capacity and who must be deprived of their liberty for care and treatment purposes. I hope that these government amendments address the concerns raised by noble Lords. I thank them again for raising them and for contributing to the development of these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, we have had some very useful and, more often than not, constructive engagement with the Government during the passage of this Bill. The success of our collaborative working is certainly demonstrated in these amendments extending the provisions to 16 and 17 year-olds.
In the very early days of its thinking on this point, the Law Commission commented on the poor knowledge among health and social care professionals about how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 applied to 16 and 17 year- olds. A subsequent report stated:
“There are likely to be a range of issues that are specific to young people that will need to be included in guidance and/or codes of practice”.
The report went on to argue the need for dedicated training for professionals working with this age group and highlighted areas such as children’s services, mental health services, children and adolescent mental health services and adult mental health services, as well as schools. As an aside, my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen is currently writing a report for the Council of Europe addressing the health needs of adolescents in Europe, and I look forward to reading it.
On this very important matter, the Minister and his team should be congratulated on recognising that 16 and 17 year-olds are vulnerable to slipping through the gaps that the Bill would create for them if they were not included. This is a vitally important change to the Bill—many of the stakeholders consulted listed this as one of their main concerns. Extending the age to cover 16 and 17 year-olds will ensure that some of the most vulnerable young people can access adequate help and be empowered. On this side, we strongly support the amendments.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My Lords, the amendments in this group have been tabled to remove the references to “unsound mind” from the Bill. As was made very clear in discussions at Second Reading, in Committee and outside this House, we all agree that the expression “unsound mind” is outdated and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, reminded the House, it is not clinically relevant. Noble Lords have made it clear that they want to change this language and that it should not be used in the Bill.
It is worth remembering that “unsound mind” is the language used in Article 5 of the ECHR. It was included in the Law Commission’s draft Bill and we brought it over to our Bill because we were concerned about creating a gap in which some people who were entitled to Article 5 safeguards would not have access to the liberty protection safeguards and would have to have their arrangements authorised in the Court of Protection. The Government took the view that it would be unfair to deny people access to the protections provided by the liberty protection safeguards, particularly as we know court processes can be cumbersome for them and their family. However, noble Lords and the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that further thought be given to replacing “unsound mind” with a medically and legally appropriate term and this is what we have done.
The Government have reflected on the debate in this House, particularly the expert legal insight provided by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—who is not in his place at the moment—whom I thank. Having done this, we are comfortable that we can use alternative language that is unlikely to create a significant gap. If people do fall out of this definition, they will still have recourse to the Court of Protection to authorise deprivations of liberty, although we expect the number of these cases to be very few. To achieve this, Amendment 6 removes the reference to “unsound mind” from the arrangements to which the liberty protection safe- guards apply and replaces it with “mental disorder”. Amendment 12 provides that “mental disorder” has the same meaning as under Section 1(2) of the Mental Health Act which is,
“any disorder or disability of the mind”.
This is also consistent with the approach under the current DoLS system and is therefore well understood by practitioners.
We considered other approaches, such as using the definition of a lack of capacity in Section 2 of the Mental Capacity Act, which refers to an,
“impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain”.
However, we concluded that this definition was too broad for the purposes of Article 5(1)(e), which permits the deprivation of liberty only on the basis of unsound mind. For example, the Section 2 definition could mean that people who are unconscious or have a brain injury, without psychiatric symptoms, might be able to be deprived of their liberty under the liberty protection safeguards scheme.
Amendment 12 removes the definition of “unsound mind” from the Bill. The noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, have tabled Amendments 25 and 50, which instead use the phrase,
“has disorder or disability of the mind”.
These words are also taken from the definition in the Mental Health Act and I believe the amendments are intended to have the same effect as the Government’s. Now that the Government have moved on this, I hope they will feel that to be the case. Finally, Amendments 14, 26, 51, 131, 132 and 133 update other parts of the Bill to reflect the removal of “unsound mind” and the substitution of “mental disorder”.
I end by thanking noble Lords for the robust debate on this issue. I have very much had my mind changed on this and give reassurance that people will not fall through the gap. We have got to a good position, which provides the kind of protection that we want while also getting rid of a phrase with connotations that none of us is happy with. On that basis, I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I need to inform the House that, within this group, Amendments 25 and 26 appear to be alternatives. Amendment 26 will be moved only if Amendment 25 is withdrawn or disagreed to.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I support this group of amendments. One or two offer a slightly different definition or slightly different words but the key point for me, having moved a similar amendment in Committee, is that we have now removed the phrase “unsound mind” from the Bill. I know this is welcomed here and will be hugely welcomed by many in the sector. It means we will get rid not only of a very old-fashioned and stigmatising term but one on which there were also concerns—as I understood from my conversations with the Royal College of Psychiatrists—that it had no real clinical meaning. The term “mental disorder”—or the few more words added by other amendments—not only brings us in line with the Mental Health Act, which is good, but I am advised that it will also help to provide diagnostic clarity. That has to be a good thing too. I support this group of amendments.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments and I am delighted that the Minister has had his mind changed. Not using this phrase will change how people feel about their relatives who may be suffering from mental disorders. I am also optimistic that, in the longer term, using such modern nomenclature will make mental health professions more attractive to young people.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I also welcome these amendments; removing “unsound mind” is a major step forward. I have a couple of questions for the Minister and I hope he can clarify. I may have misheard him but I understood him to talk about head injury. It would be helpful if he could clarify that he was referring to acute head injury—or acute brain impairment of any sort—as opposed to long-term damage such as frontal-lobe damage, which can happen when you have had a major brain injury. This can result in very long-term problems and difficult behaviours, which may mean that people currently need to be assessed as subject to deprivation of liberty. Could he clarify that we are not discounting a whole group of people who, it is generally felt, benefit from being properly assessed and safeguarded?
I would also like confirmation from him on another group. In January 2015, the then Mental Capacity Act deprivation of liberty safeguards policy lead in the Department of Health wrote out quite widely. There had been a concern about people who were nearing the end of life, including palliative care patients and patients in hospices. It was made clear in this letter that if somebody had consented to a care package and then went on—as part of their disease process when they were dying—to need some restrictions, and possibly to be moved to another place of care, that would not fulfil the acid test as such; neither would it in the case of people who were being nursed in a side room who were not under continuous supervision and control. The reason was that, in palliative care cases, there is often a time when the family cannot cope as the patient becomes unconscious, is moved to a hospice or develops another condition that had not been anticipated. It would be an inadvertent consequence if this letter from January 2015 no longer stood. It has been important and has made care easier. It was following this letter that we were able to change the regulations for what had to be referred to a coroner. That made a major difference, because families found it terribly traumatic to find a relative subject to a deprivation of liberty safeguard having to be referred to a coroner. I simply seek clarification on those two issues, but I in no way question the importance of removing “unsound mind” from the Bill. I hope this is the beginning of us seeing the end of that term, which is stigmatising.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the replacement of “unsound mind”, but I ask the Minister to consider adding a safeguard to ensure that no one has their liberty denied because of a mental disorder without first being seen by a qualified doctor. It is essential that individuals are assessed for a mental disorder and not another condition presenting as a mental disorder, such as delirium or the side-effects of medication, which are common among older people. It is important that consideration is given to whether the disorder can be managed without depriving the person of their liberty. This requires assessment not only of their mental state but of their past and current physical health and medication. The assessment is a core part of this process. It has great significance because it relates to the deprivation of a person’s liberty. Who can carry this out should be stipulated in the Bill rather than in a code of practice. I ask the Minister to reconsider bringing forward an amendment to add this requirement to the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness on the assessments. The Minister’s amendment is very welcome, but clearly the assessment is crucial. My understanding is that in previous debates, as the noble Baroness suggested, he said that the code of practice will set out which competencies will be needed to carry out this assessment. Like the noble Baroness, I ask him to consider, perhaps between now and Third Reading, whether this might be better put in regulations than in the code of practice. I always worry a bit about the use of “competencies”. It is a word now used in many recruitment processes, but what exactly does it mean? Will it be done by a registered medical practitioner with sufficient expertise in this field? If not, what is the justification? The change the Government have made is enormously welcome, but it is very important that we are confident the assessment will be carried out appropriately.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, this group of amendments is most welcome. The term “unsound mind” is offensive in the extreme and historically has been used as a form of abuse to demean the dignity of the person to whom it is applied. These amendments mean that this old-fashioned term will no longer be in the Bill and that a phrase with no clinical meaning is rightly removed. Using the same term as the Mental Health Act, “mental disorder”—this link is explicitly made by the Government in Amendment 12—provides better diagnostic clarity.
Amendments 25 and 50 in the names of my noble friend Baroness Thornton and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, change “unsound mind” to,
“any disorder or disability of the mind”.
The Minister responded to those points in his opening speech. This is the language currently used under the DoLS in the Mental Health Act and it is to be welcomed.
Perhaps I may share with the House my personal experiences. My late mother suffered two nervous breakdowns in her life. One occurred before I was born, when she was put into an institution, where I do not think she was well treated. Later, she suffered a further breakdown when I was 16 and I had to take the lead, coping with and co-ordinating help and support for her, my father and our family. The consequences of her breakdown that I witnessed were traumatic not only for my mother, who was a loving, kind and thoughtful individual, but for our family, who witnessed times when she seemed to grow away from us.
My mother made a recovery and we all came through it, thanks to the devotion and understanding of our family doctor, our wider family and friends. However, our family experience has given me an understanding of some of the consequences of mental illness for individuals and their families. Families who experience what mine went through need support and understanding to cope, which is why I welcome the amendments.
I have said that the term “unsound mind” is used to cover many things. It is one that personally I find offensive, and I rejoice that those words are being removed from the Bill.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I thank all noble Lords for their support for these amendments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for sharing with us that story. It brings into sharp perspective the consequences of language and culture in the way that people are treated. We are trying to move to a more compassionate and comprehensive system of helping people who reach mental health crises. I appreciate him sharing that story, which was very moving.
Perhaps I may deal quickly with the questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked whether long-term brain injuries would be included. The answer is that they would. The reference that I made was to the potential short-term impacts, which we would not necessarily want to capture in this definition. On her question about palliative care, my understanding—I will certainly confirm it, as I have not seen the letter—is that it still applies. I think that is the reassurance she was hoping to get.
In relation to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the assessment of a condition by a doctor, case law requires that such an assessment should be carried out by somebody who has objective medical expertise. In practice, that means a registered physician. Therefore, that reassurance already exists in jurisprudence, but I accept the importance of the point raised—that, perhaps except in an incredibly rare emergency, that kind of diagnosis should always be made by somebody with that level of competence or skill qualification, however you want to define it. I will write to noble Lords explaining the position as it stands in law and why we think that it gives the protection and reassurance they are looking for. We can then perhaps follow that up with a discussion if there are any remaining concerns. I certainly agree that this is an important issue.
I hope that I have dealt with noble Lords’ questions and I thank them again for their support and the challenge that has got us to this point of moving forward.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My Lords, we now come to the largest group of amendments on the issue that has perhaps taken up most of our attention in the progress of the Bill so far, and quite right too.
The government amendments in this group relate to ensuring that care home managers have an appropriate role in the liberty protection safeguards system that we are seeking to implement. You would have to have had ears of cloth not to have heard the concerns raised by noble Lords and stakeholders throughout the passage of the Bill about the proper role of care home managers. I agree that we must be absolutely clear at this stage in legislation about what is the right role for those care home managers. I also agree that there should be no scope for any conflict of interest—not when we are talking about the safety and care of very vulnerable people—and that we should ensure that all assessments are completed by those with the appropriate experience and knowledge. Furthermore, people should always have confidence that they will have access to independent support and representation.
I will shortly address the specific amendments in this group. Before I do so, I would like to draw noble Lords’ attention to other germane government amendments, which we will deal with on the second day of Report but which are important to consider in the round with the amendments in this group. Those include proposals that we have made to ensure that only responsible bodies can arrange the pre-authorisation review and that care home managers will be explicitly excluded from completing the pre-authorisation review. This is important because pre-authorisation should not confirm poor care planning or perpetuate a system where someone is receiving care in an inappropriate setting. The amendments that we have laid and which we will deal with on the second day will counteract any incentive the care home manager might have to ensure that a resident stays in a care home inappropriately. We are also determined to make sure that the care home manager cannot act as a gatekeeper to the IMCA appointment, and we have laid amendments accordingly.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the role of care home managers in authorisation. I have strongly and deeply considered noble Lords’ concerns in the context of what we know works now in the current system. There is a desire to make sure that the liberty protection system that we intend to introduce builds on what works and changes what does not. Under the current DoLS system, care home managers have the role of identifying that someone may lack capacity and need restrictions as part of their care. In practice, they must complete form 1, which brings together all of the current assessments for a person. This is then sent to local authorities, which appoint a best-interest assessor to conduct a further assessment ahead of providing the authorisation. This is an appropriate role for care home managers to undertake, and is the role we are proposing and clarifying through our amendments.
Amendment 30 requires the responsible body to make a decision on whether it is content that it is appropriate for the care home manager to carry out the relevant functions prior to authorisation, including arranging assessments and carrying out consultation. Amendment 90 applies this decision to reviews as well. This is an important change because it provides additional protections in cases where there may be concerns about a particular provider and its capability for conducting its role, and it allows responsibility to take on all the relevant functions in these cases. There may also be cases where there are no concerns about quality of care, but there may, for example, be particularly strong social worker involvement and it may make sense for them to take on those functions.
This power to remove the care home manager from the process can be enacted at any point, and we would expect it to be done at the earliest possible point, particularly if there are concerns. We will use the code of practice to set out the detail so that it is applied consistently by different local authorities, with clear criteria for the responsible body to make a decision on whether to retain responsibility for the relevant functions. In the case of care home residents, this significantly strengthens the role of local authorities in terms of oversight, intervention and supporting the quality of the operation of the scheme. If the responsible body has decided that the care home manager should be responsible for providing the statement and carrying out the other functions, the care home manager will bring together the information, evidence and assessments needed for the responsible body to make a decision on whether to authorise the liberty protection safeguard. In many cases, this will bring together recent valid assessments that can be used for this purpose.
As has been said previously, care needs change over time. We recognise that putting hard and fast rules on the validity and timeliness of assessments would not recognise the reality of what happens. That is why we will set out in the code of practice what we would expect to see in terms of valid and up-to-date assessments. The Bill also enables the responsible body to step in, if they are not confident in the validity of the assessments, by refusing to authorise the arrangements. Let me be clear that all the assessments would involve consultation with the person. In addition, the Bill will require the care home manager, or the responsible body, to complete the consultation with the person and other interested persons.
Some noble Lords have stated their concern that there is a potential conflict of interest if care home managers were to conduct assessments. The Government agree that there is a potential financial conflict if care home managers were to complete assessments for people in their own care homes, particularly when it comes to considering whether there are less restrictive alternatives. Amendment 52 explicitly excludes care home managers or others from undertaking the assessments if they have a specified connection to the care home, in particular if there is a financial connection. This will be set out in regulations. We will use the regulations to ensure, in England, that care home staff are not able to conduct assessments where they have a potential financial conflict of interest and the Welsh Government will have the power to do the same. Doing this in regulations allows us to provide the necessary detail, given the complexity of the care home sector, to ensure that there are no loopholes. For example, we would not want someone who works in another care home run by the same company to conduct the assessments.
Noble Lords have rightly asked questions about who undertakes the assessments and in particular why there were no clear requirements on the expertise of those who undertake capacity and medical assessments. That refers tangentially to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, before. Although that is already provided for in binding Article 5 case law, I have been persuaded that more clarity is needed. Amendment 52 clarifies that capacity and medical assessments must be carried out by someone with appropriate experience and knowledge. Capacity assessments should be completed by a registered professional such as a nurse, social worker or occupational therapist, and medical assessments must be completed by a physician. We will set out in the code of practice the experience and knowledge that we would expect to see for those undertaking assessments.
On the point about experience and knowledge, Amendment 53 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would have the effect of requiring that the person who conducts the assessment has the appropriate skills and knowledge. The noble Baroness is absolutely correct that the person who completes the assessment should have the necessary skills to be able to conduct the assessment. Amendment 52 already provides for that within the description of experience and knowledge and we would expect that to cover the necessary skills. We will define that in the code of practice so that it explicitly describes the skills, using the term “skills” and describing the kinds of skills that ought to be required of the person carrying out assessments.
There are also some minor amendments that clarify definitions of care home manager and responsible bodies. Amendment 8 updates the definition of care home manager. Amendment 9 corrects the definition of care home manager in Wales. Amendments 11, 15 and 24 set out a definition of English and Welsh responsible bodies. Amendment 17 removes the definition of local health board as it is now superfluous.
I hope that noble Lords have had a reasonable chance to examine all the government amendments in this group. They have been carefully crafted to reflect to the best possible extent all the concerns set out by noble Lords at Second Reading and in Committee to remove any concerns about conflict of interest and make sure that care home managers are not, to coin a phrase, marking their own homework. They have an important role in organising assessments, but it is effectively an administrative function with proper oversight, and assessments will be carried out by those with the proper qualifications, expertise, skill and knowledge. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, there is a tone of disappointment because I welcome all the government amendments, but the role of my amendment to government Amendment 52 was twofold. First, I am disappointed that speech and language therapists were not in that list read out by the Minister, because we had a debate about the importance of communication skills. When communication is impaired, particularly with disorders that affect any part of the speech or throat cycle, it is very difficult to assess someone’s capacity.
I included skills because I worry that experience and knowledge are sometimes just not enough. If the Government insist on “skills” going into the code of practice, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the skills will be assessed and reviewed at appraisal, and that they demonstrate an understanding of the impact of fear—being frightened—on the way the person behaves.
The assessors must have a high level of communication skills and awareness of all the different ways that communication can be enhanced. I hope that they would also have an awareness of the impact of different types of medication on someone’s capacity, because sometimes changing the medication can really improve a person’s ability to make a decision for themselves.
Amendment 53 links to Amendment 74, which is in my name and will come up later. I am concerned that, without strong reassurance, some of these issues could slip by and we could inadvertently end up having superficial assessments of some people and not the thorough and in-depth ones they deserve. The whole principle of the Mental Capacity Act is to empower people to make their own decisions, and we are talking about trying to have the least restrictive option so that we can enhance a person’s liberty as much as possible. If that assessment is not meticulous with the appropriate skills, the wrong judgments could end up being made.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I realise that in the last group I mentioned general medical practitioners. I ought to inform the House of my forthcoming appointment to the General Medical Council.
We have had a lot to read in the last few days, and are clearly going to have to take a lot of this on trust, but the thrust of the amendments is welcome, and I am grateful to the Minister for tabling them. As he said, they strengthen the role of local authorities and give them a clear remit to intervene where they feel that, for one reason or another, the care home manager cannot discharge the responsibilities given in relation to the authorisation application appropriately.
In the letter that the Minister sent to a number of noble Lords, he set out factors that might be considered by the local authority as a responsible body. These would be:
“Whether the person has a care plan with the responsible body … local intelligence about a local provider of care homes”,
which would suggest that the responsible body takes over the process;
“insight from local commissioners or concerns about performance … sustained absence of a registered manager”—
or presumably when the turnover of managers is high, as it can be; and—
“an increase in concerns raised by residents, their carers or families … a new service or category of care provision, and/or … provision of poor or incomplete statements”.
To me that sounds very comprehensive and welcome.
What arises from this is that the responsible body will have to make a considerable judgment and, to make it, will need a very clear understanding of the care homes in its area. Could the Minister say a little about how he thinks that local authorities might be supported in that role? Clearly, they now have a major role which they have found it hard to discharge, for reasons that have been discussed. It is important they are able to do this in a consistent way.
The Minister mentioned the code of practice. It is a statutory code of practice, which I think means that it must be followed unless the local body has very good reason not to do so. It would be interesting to know what plans the department has for checking with the local authorities—not in a heavy-handed way—how well it is going after time and implementation, and seeing whether there is consistency across the country as a whole.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I too welcome the Government’s change of mind. They started with a very different understanding from ours of the current roles of care home managers, local authorities, best-interests assessors and DoLS assessors. I think we still have a difference of opinion about how life works in practice, but these amendments show a considerable movement, if not complete agreement on that part, and therefore we welcome them. I feel it is right to remind the Minister that when the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House did the post-legislative scrutiny on the Mental Capacity Act and its workings five years after its implementation, there was an overwhelming lack of information and data both in local authorities and throughout the health service. I rather think that we have been perhaps unnecessarily preoccupied in this Bill with who carries out a particular function rather than looking at the way those functions could possibly be streamlined and better audited.
I do not think that the work of a local authority best-interests assessor or a DoLS lead, however they may be termed under the new scheme, is actually going to change that much, but I welcome the attempt here to meet us half way, and I thank the Minister for that. Well, perhaps it is more than half way in terms of our assessment that what was being asked of care home managers was beyond their capacity to deliver. Big questions still need to be asked about their role in the overall scheme. If we had not spent quite so much time on this, we might have been able to look more closely at greater efficiencies in terms of reporting and so on. For the moment, however, I welcome these amendments.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I too welcome the amendments and I thank the Minister and his team for the meeting we had earlier this week. He will recall that I raised my concern about different regimes operating in different parts of the country. A responsible body in my borough might decide that it alone would take responsibility for putting together applications, while in the next-door borough the care home manager and so on might be involved. I wanted to look at how we could get to a common approach right across the country. The Minister has helpfully sent us an excellent letter in response to the points I and others raised. In it he states:
“We wish to work with a wide range of stakeholders on developing the code of practice”.
Is he yet in a position to tell which stakeholders he will be consulting? Perhaps he could write and tell us at a later stage, because it would be awful if we left someone off who could make a valuable contribution to this work. The Minister goes on to say:
“We are beginning to develop a programme for the new Code of Practice for the Liberty Protection Safeguards, working alongside the Ministry of Justice. The MoJ is also about to start a project to review the Code of Practice for the wider Mental Capacity Act too, so we will have the opportunity to work on both”.
How does he plan for the two departments to consult between them with stakeholders when looking at the code of practice? Will he consider whether it would be worth setting up a group of interested parties who could act as a sounding board? As the code is developed, similar to what we have done with the Armed Forces covenant, we could bounce ideas off a group which might have an interest and make a contribution. Perhaps we could do something along the same lines. That might ensure that when in the end we get the code of practice, it will have widespread support and be of great benefit to those who we are concerned about.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for tabling this suite of amendments which, as they say, change the position of care home managers from the original proposal to give them a significant role in applying the liberty protection safeguards—the scheme that is to replace DoLS in care homes. As the Minister said in his comprehensive introduction of this large group, they are a combination of technical amendments and others which are very important indeed. The amendments headed by government Amendment 30 are particularly relevant because they give the responsible body the ability to decide in certain circumstances to take over the authorisation functions in care homes in certain settings. The Government have said that they will set out the details in the code of practice. I shall return to the issue of the regulations and the code of practice in a moment.
Government Amendments 52 and 66 are equally important because they deal with conflicts of interest. The Government have said that the regulations will set out in detail the prescribed functions. I just want to ask a technical question. We do not quite understand why Amendment 78 has been severed from Amendment 73, which it seems to sit with; they are kind of twins and need to be taken together. I realise that we will be dealing with Amendment 73 next week, but they are very important amendments which give regulation-making powers, allowing the appropriate authority to make provisions about what constitutes a connection with a care home. They are also about conflicts of interest.
Amendment 90, as the noble Lord has said, gives the responsible body the ability to decide on the renewal of authorisation functions in care home settings. Listening carefully to what the Minister said when he introduced these amendments, one of the issues they raise is what goes in regulations and what goes in the code of practice. This has been a theme that we have discussed all the way through. It seems to me very important—and I seek reassurance from the Minister on this—that what goes in regulations is matters relating to powers and protection of the individual, and what goes in the code of practice is how those are carried out. Both are very important documents and it is important to address this, so that the right things go in regulations and the issue is comprehensively covered.
It is clear from the debates we have had throughout consideration of the Bill that we welcome the change of heart on policy. Some clarification and explanation will still be required as we move forward, but this suite of amendments does address the important issue of conflicts of interest in the powers of the care home manager and puts the interests of the cared-for person at the heart of the Bill, as they should be. It was clear from the beginning that this issue is of huge concern to all stakeholders on the Labour Benches, as well as across the House. That is why we submitted the suite of amendments early after Committee—strong amendments which addressed and fundamentally changed the role of the care home manager.
Noble Lords will see that the next group of amendments in the list are mine and are supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Watkins. I thank them most sincerely for their support very early in this process. We went through the Bill and removed reference to, or significantly changed the role of, the care home manager. This group starts with Amendment 13, which I would like to assure the Minister, as I did the Bill team, I will not be moving today. These amendments were designed to specify the responsibilities of what we called the “nominated body”—in other words, a qualified body nominated by the responsible body in relation to the authorisation of care home arrangements. That suite of amendments makes it clear that the care home manager’s role is to co-ordinate the required information, determinations and assessment, rather than to carry them out. I am very glad that the Minister used almost exactly those words. What we call the nominated body will be designated by the responsible body. All the subsequent amendments in this group take powers away from the care home manager and replace them.
I was in the Minister’s place many years ago. Seeing these amendments coming down the track with support from across the House—and, indeed, the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which were sometimes even more radical in their intent—the Minister, the Bill team and his advisers were very wise to take a second look when one considers that all the stakeholders took the same view, without exception, I think. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in that I regret that we met such obduracies, which is what they felt like from our point of view, from the Government in the early stages of the Bill about the role of the care home manager. That meant that we did not spend enough time on other issues that we should have addressed. We did not spend enough time on CCGs, the NHS and the place of local councils in delivering the new arrangements, as my noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned. We did not spend enough time examining the funding and resourcing of the new arrangements. The Minister got off quite lightly on those issues; I am sure that my honourable friends in the Commons will make up for where we lack in this area.
The test of the amendments is whether they fulfil the aims of the suite of amendments we tabled all those weeks ago. We are applying that test today. Can the Minister confirm that the government amendments would give the responsible local authorities the option of giving these roles to the care home manager or taking the responsibilities on themselves and, most importantly, that the care home manager will no longer be responsible for notifying the responsible body whether an IMCA should be appointed in any case? In Amendment 78, it seems that care home managers would not be able to commission anyone with a prescribed connection to the care home. That is to be welcomed.
As far as we are concerned, these amendments are lacking on the issue of—is it the AMPS?
Baroness Thornton
Thank you. I always get those initials wrong. We will discuss that issue tomorrow. As far as we are concerned, the amendments go a long way to meeting the issues that we have raised throughout the previous stages of the Bill. I am grateful for that and I offer them our support.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I am grateful for noble Lords’ support for this group of amendments. I might say that I recognise a juggernaut when I see one coming, but this was about not just the force or number of the amendments—or, indeed, the length of them—but the force of the argument. During this process, we have established the critical point that the care home manager has an important role in the new system, because we want to provide a more proportionate and flexible system, but equally that cannot put them in a position where they have too much power. That would compromise the rights of the people being cared for, who are obviously very vulnerable. The amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Thornton, gave us some idea of where noble Lords were headed and gave us some sense of shape and direction about where we ought to go to. We have made great progress, and I thank noble Lords for not just their input but their patience throughout this process. It has been trying and challenging for all of us at times, but we have made some great changes that will put the system on a much better footing.
I want to deal with the specific issues raised by various noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about speech and language therapists. In describing the amendments, I talked about professions “such as” those; she is right that I did not name them specifically. We need to consider which professions are included; clearly, we will want to consult relevant groups and noble Lords on that. Of course, we will make sure during that process that such professionals have the knowledge, skills and expertise that the noble Baroness is looking for. On skills, I recognise that she is disappointed; I hate to disappoint her. I think that this is an issue of semantics. Offline, I can provide assurance on what she is looking for, which is not a superficial case of whether these professionals have a certain degree or are a member of a certain professional body so that boxes can be ticked and we can go ahead. That should be avoided because it will not serve us very well.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the role of local authorities. In the amendments, we have made it clear that the local authority has a prior role in making a judgment about the providers in its area. That was not clear in the Bill before—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about that role as well—and it is an incredibly important judgment, because local authorities will need to be in a position to look across their provider network and see who they are clear and confident will be able to make such decisions and who will not. To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, that will be set out in the code of practice. I will come to his point about stakeholders later. The most important thing is that this is a prior power, to be exercised by the responsible body.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
“( ) in relation to Wales, the person who manages the care home service, within the meaning of Part 1 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 (anaw 2), at the care home, by virtue of regulations made under section 28 of that Act;”
““clinical commissioning group” means a body established under section 14D of the National Health Service Act 2006;”
““English responsible body” has the meaning given by paragraph 10A;”
““mental disorder” has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the Mental Health Act;”
Lord O'Shaughnessy
““Welsh responsible body” has the meaning given by paragraph 10B.”
Baroness Barker
“(aa) if the arrangements are carried out in an independent hospital, the designated NHS trust;”
Baroness Barker
My Lords, following our previous discussion, we turn to an area that has not received sufficient attention because we were so focused on care homes and care home managers. My Amendment 16 addresses the position of independent hospitals. I think independent hospitals in Wales might in part be addressed in Amendment 16A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and grouped with my amendment.
In the process of talking to stakeholders over the past few weeks, it became clear that many of the concerns that we have expressed over conflicts of interest for care homes also apply to independent hospitals, and therefore it seemed to us important to state in the Bill that where a person is deprived of their liberty and is in an independent hospital, the CCG or the local health board is the responsible body as, as we have discussed in great depth and tortuous detail over the past few weeks, is the parallel case for care homes and local authorities.
It is unfortunate that we missed this and have not discussed it as much as we should have. People deprived of their liberty in independent hospitals perhaps have the worst of both worlds. They do not have the protection of the Mental Health Act and they are perhaps less likely to come to the attention of an external body, such as a local authority, because their care is unlikely to have been through the care planning process. Therefore, they could be at a greater point of vulnerability. They may also be more likely to be deprived of their liberty because the deprivation may be something to do with medication. That is why I tabled this amendment, so that we could perhaps return to this at Third Reading. It is important that the Government make clear their intention that there should be clarity about the position of people held in these establishments, and that they do so swiftly and in sufficient detail. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, Amendments 16 and 16A appear to be alternatives, so Amendment 16A will be moved only if Amendment 16 is withdrawn or disagreed to.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment and I very strongly support it. Having been a Mental Health Act commissioner for many years and having visited independent hospitals as well as NHS hospitals and other establishments, I remember those independent hospitals as being the most alarming environments that I ever visited. Very often, the biggest problem was indeed the conflict of interest. People would get into those hospitals and be treated, and that was all good, but whereas in an NHS hospital the pressure all the time, from the day of arrival, is to plan the exit and aftercare in the community, once those hospitals had got the person better they had a lovely ride. The patient was there and was no trouble, no longer had symptoms and was miles—maybe hundreds of miles—from their family. They did not get visits. The conditions in which those people were held were shocking, and the degree of the deprivation of liberty was often deeply shocking. Did they go out in the grounds? Probably not. Did they go out for walks? Probably not. Any kind of a sense of liberty could be lost, not just for days, weeks or even months, but for years. We would do our tiny best, but the fact was that we might get round to one of those hospitals every two years. It was inadequate to say the least. I therefore urge the Minister to take this very seriously. We are worried about care homes, which are probably local and have the family nearby, if there is one. They can be a problem, but this is on another scale and of another degree of severity, so I strongly support this amendment and urge the Minister to consider it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I, too, have put my name to this amendment. My noble friend Lady Meacher has laid out very clearly some of the problems and conflicts of interest that can arise. One of the difficulties is deciding which will be the responsible body. If the place where somebody is treated is quite a long way from whoever commissioned their care, it can create real problems for a local authority or a clinical commissioning group, which might be funding outside the range of common care for somebody to be some distance away. That is why we have to decide which is to be the responsible body, and that responsible body must take those responsibilities seriously. The advantage of the responsible body being a designated NHS trust is that the private hospital is likely to have consultant-level staff who are likely to have an NHS contract somewhere at another trust, which may be nearby, or if they are part of a specialised group they will be subject to a degree of oversight, appraisal and so on within that specialist area. They are less likely to have local GPs who would be answerable to clinical commissioning groups. One just does not know. They have to go to one or the other. The most dangerous of all would be to have what one might term a mixed economy of a responsible body in some situations and a clinical commissioning group or local health board in another.
In Wales, things are a little different because the local health board covers the hospital sector and the community, so we have clearly defined geographical boundaries with much easier lines of answerability. My feeling is that we need to plump for one. I hope that the Government will, and I can see that there may, on balance, be advantages in saying the designated NHS trust is the responsible body.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I shall speak to my amendment, which is in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that the Government need to opt for something here to solve this problem. Mencap, in particular, and VoiceAbility have been very exercised by this because, as noble Lords have said, there is a conflict of interest when an independent hospital can be responsible for authorising deprivation of liberty for people in the hospital for the purposes of assessment and treatment of a mental disorder. My amendment names the CCG or local health board as the responsible body to remove that conflict of interest.
Since the Winterbourne View learning disability abuse scandal in 2011, the Government have been trying to reduce the number of people in these settings but, it must be said, largely without success. There remain 2,350 people with a learning disability and/or autism in these settings who in many cases could, with the right support, be in the community, but half of them are in independent hospitals. The independent hospital sector is expanding—to the horror, it must be said, of very many people. The average cost of a placement in an assessment and treatment unit for people with a learning disability is £3,500 a week. It can be as high as £13,000 a week. The average stay is of five and a half years. This is really not acceptable. Many noble Lords may have seen the excellent piece by Ian Birrell in the Mail on Sunday—not a newspaper I would normally read—which looked at the companies and the significant profits they make from these very lucrative contracts. The article details two giant US healthcare companies, a global private equity group and a Guernsey-based hedge fund, as well as two British firms and a major charity. The point is that these bodies are responsible for deprivation of liberty, and that can neither be acceptable, nor indeed what the Government intended. The Minister needs to provide us with some solution to this problem.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baronesses for tabling their amendments and giving us the opportunity to debate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, an incredibly important issue. We have heard examples of individuals and institutions where there have been tragic cases of people deprived of their liberty in independent hospitals, and these amendments have given us the opportunity to think about the best way forward to make sure there is proper oversight and authorisation in such cases.
Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker, Lady Finlay and Lady Meacher, makes the designated NHS trust the responsible body in independent hospital cases. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would make the CCG or local health board the responsible body where a person is accommodated in an independent hospital for the assessment of mental disorder.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and other noble Baronesses pointed out, stakeholders have raised this issue on many occasions. They have raised concerns about the level of scrutiny in these independent hospital cases. The Bill, as it stands, provides that in most cases the managers of independent hospitals are responsible bodies, meaning that they authorise arrangements carried out mainly in hospitals. The amendments seek to address this by changing the responsible body, and I have great sympathy with their intention.
We know that those in independent hospitals often have particularly complex needs, especially those being assessed or treated for mental disorders. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said we need a solution, but I think there is a different solution, which could improve—if I dare say so—on the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses. Rather than changing the responsible bodies, it would be even better if we required an AMCP to complete the pre-authorisation review in such cases. We know that the AMCP is a registered professional, accountable to their professional body, and that they would meet the individual, and any other interested parties, in person. The Government believe that independent hospitals would benefit from AMCP involvement, and therefore our intention is to bring forward an amendment, or amendments, as required, in the Commons to deal with this issue and make sure that there is such a role for the AMCP in all deprivation of liberty cases.
Baroness Thornton
If I might set this in the vernacular, one of the reasons that we have been so concerned about the conflicts of interest and powers for the care home manager is that we wonder how anyone can be sprung, as it were, from the situation in which they find themselves. How would an AMCP do that? How could they be liberated from the situation they are in if the deprivation of liberty power remains with the chief executive or manager of the private hospital?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The reason is that although the deprivation of liberty would take place in that institution, every single case would be examined by an AMCP. The pre-authorisation review and scrutiny would be carried out by the AMCP. They would have the ability to examine the case, to speak to the person and all other relevant interested persons, and to challenge, if necessary, the circumstances of the deprivation of liberty or the care that had been put in place.
To take the hierarchy of decision-making in a care home, for example, the arrangements are made by, but not carried out by, the care home manager. They are referred to the responsible body for preauthorisation review, and if there are concerns of a problem at the level of the responsible body—an objection on behalf of the person or on behalf of somebody who cares for or is connected to them—it would go immediately to the AMCP. In a sense, this vaults the decision-making process beyond the responsible body and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, there are particular issues over which body ought to take responsibility and go straight to, effectively, the last port of call before the Court of Protection. It provides that degree of oversight and challenge in these cases.
Baroness Meacher
A concern is that a lot of these people lose touch with their communities and families—they are often a long way from them. Is the assumption here that if somebody objects, then the AMCP would get involved, but that otherwise the hospital management might remain responsible?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
That is a perfectly reasonable question, but the AMCP would absolutely look at every case. There would not need to be an objection raised. I was just explaining the hierarchy for non-independent hospital cases. It would be, in a sense, going to the second-highest port of call for scrutiny that we are considering in other cases to highlight the seriousness of it. There would not be that gatekeeper point which the noble Baroness is worried about.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
How would we be clear that we knew about all the people who had a deprivation of liberty, if we are depending on that independent hospital to notify and call in an AMCP? That AMCP may be one with whom they end up having an uncomfortably close or cosy relationship. How could there be a degree of independence, when the person signing it off as the responsible body would still be the one with a vested interest in keeping their beds full and their income going, which was the very thing that concerned us about the care home? Is the Minister prepared to meet us and discuss this outside? I understand the intention to have everyone assessed by an AMCP, but I am worried that if we leave it to go to the Commons, some of the concerns that have been raised here may not get carried over.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
Absolutely—I would be more than happy to do so. I have tried to demonstrate our intention to deal with the issue, but we remain open-minded about the best way to do it. We have concerns with the amendments as laid—we were trying, if anything, to turbo-boost the approach. I recognise that the noble Baroness is concerned about an overfamiliarity between individuals, which she is trying to make sure that we avoid. There may be other concerns with the model that we are considering. I am more than happy to take that offline, and that would be a very fruitful discussion.
Baroness Barker
I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which I will need to think about long and hard. One thing that noble Lords will have to take into consideration is whether an AMCP would have the power to refer a case to the Court of Protection if they felt it necessary. That would be a big factor. I listened very carefully to the Minister, who used the term “hospital manager”. He will know that it has a particular meaning in the Mental Health Act. I have no crystal ball, and neither do other noble Lords, but were the role of the hospital manager in the Mental Health Act to be something on which the forthcoming review sought to make a decision, then would this not be another case for our looking in detail at the synchronisation between this legislation and the Mental Health Act? I welcome the Minister’s response. There is a bit more work to do, and considerable constructive welcome for continued work. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
“(za) if there is an Education, Health and Care plan for the cared-for person, the local authority responsible for maintaining that plan;(zb) if there is an individual development plan for the cared-for person—(i) the local authority responsible for maintaining that plan, or(ii) if the plan is not maintained by a local authority, the local authority whose area the cared-for person is in;”
“(4A) In paragraph 6(c), “responsible local authority”, in relation to a cared-for person aged 16 or 17, means—(a) if there is an Education, Health and Care plan for the cared-for person, the local authority responsible for maintaining that plan;(b) if there is an individual development plan for the cared-for person—(i) the local authority responsible for maintaining that plan, or(ii) if the plan is not maintained by a local authority, the local authority whose area the cared-for person is in;(c) if neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) applies and the cared-for person is being provided with accommodation—(i) under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, or(ii) under section 76 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (anaw 4),the local authority providing that accommodation;(d) if none of paragraphs (a) to (c) applies and the cared-for person is subject to a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 or an interim care order under section 38 of that Act, the local authority that is responsible under the order for the care of the cared-for person;(e) if none of paragraphs (a) to (d) applies, the local authority determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (5).”
“(7) In this paragraph—“Education, Health and Care plan” means a plan within the meaning of section 37(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014;“individual development plan” means a plan within the meaning of section 10 of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 (anaw 2).”
“10A_ “English responsible body” means—(a) a hospital manager of a hospital in England;(b) a clinical commissioning group;(c) a local authority in England.10B_ “Welsh responsible body” means—(a) a hospital manager of a hospital in Wales;(b) a Local Heath Board;(c) a local authority in Wales.”
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Baroness Barker
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I have good news for the Minister. After all these weeks, I have finally accepted his argument that the best-interests principle in the Mental Capacity Act remains and applies to all decisions made under the Bill. I now agree with him that it is therefore not helpful to reiterate the term “best interests”, as we suggested in previous amendments at a previous stage. The even happier news is that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, agrees with me on that.
However, I am afraid that peace and harmony may not have broken out completely. Noble Lords will recall from previous debates that we have argued that the requirement that an arrangement be “necessary and proportionate” seems to be a weakening of the protections for an individual, sitting as it does with no direct connection back to those earlier best interests. We all agree that deprivation of liberty is a very important matter, and the law needs to be in compliance with Article 5. That is why we think the Bill contains a deficiency, because lawful detention is not considered directly in relation to best interests. Therefore, through these amendments, which relate both to the authorisation and the determination, we have attempted to reiterate the current wording of the DoLS legislation regarding a determination being necessary and proportionate in relation to harm to the person. In other sets of amendments and at previous times, we have had discussions about whether decisions are taken on the basis of harm to the person whose liberty is being deprived, or of harm to others. We have tabled this amendment to make it clear that it is harm to the person, and that the proportionality relates to the potential harm to that person if they are not deprived of their liberty.
Much of today’s discussion about deprivations of liberty in domestic settings originates in the failure of many professionals, in making judgments, to remember the part of the safeguards which states that deprivations of liberty must be the “least restrictive option”. It is not wrong to deprive somebody of their liberty, but it must be the least restrictive option to avoid harm to that person. We have therefore concluded—again, in discussion with stakeholders—that this amendment to the Bill would lead to greater clarity.
I can hear the words “code of practice” coming to the fore. One point on which we have never had an agreement is reliance on the code of practice. Very few pieces of legislation have a code of practice, and in health there are only two: this Act and the Mental Health Act. Anything which resides in a code of practice rests upon statute in order to be lawful. When there are arguments about whether a deprivation of liberty is lawful, those arguing the case, particularly judges, do not go to the code of practice but to the statute. What is contained in the statute may be minimal, as this is; we are simply talking about a sentence which says that that action must be “necessary and proportionate” with regard to the harm to that person. A code of practice can go on for pages and pages and include numerous examples, as it should, so that practitioners know where they are. But it does not and never will carry the legal force which comes from the wording in the Act.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in moving this amendment. One of the reasons that it should be in the Bill is that we have been trying to have the cared-for person at the heart of our deliberations, and the wording here is completely compatible with other parts of the Mental Capacity Act.
There is a terrible tendency when people look at the least restrictive option to also think about what might be convenient for them. The least restrictive option might not be the easiest, and might mean that staff have to behave in quite a different way. By wording these two amendments in this way, we are looking at the risk of harm to the person specifically, and are keeping the person at the heart of this. There always will be a risk that decisions will be contested in court and will need to go to court, and an application to the court may be judged specifically against that test, because it is in the Bill. If it is in the code of practice, there is a real danger that it could be downgraded.
Baroness Thornton
I put my name to this amendment, and we on these Benches very much support the intention behind the amendments in this group.
I bow to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has lived and worked with this for a very long time indeed, has reviewed the Mental Capacity Act and was very influential in the way it was formed. There has been a lot of discussion with stakeholders about this group of amendments and how we can best express “necessary and proportionate” in a way that will strengthen the Bill and prevent harm to the cared-for person. These amendments do that, providing clarity. Again, as I mentioned in the previous debates, because this is to do with protection and powers, it has to be in the Bill and not the code of practice. I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendments, because it is probably the best way forward, and that he will end this discussion in harmony and agreement.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
As the noble Baroness knows, I am all for harmony and agreement.
I thank the noble Baronesses for laying these amendments, and I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about her gracious acceptance of the role of the best-interests test. I recognise that she has some serious concerns about this legislation, which I take seriously. I have been determined to work closely with her, and I am grateful for her reciprocation in that process as we have moved ahead.
These amendments seek to specify that the necessary and proportionate assessment must be undertaken by reference to whether an authorisation is needed explicitly to prevent harm to the person. We know that an assessment of whether the arrangements are necessary and proportionate is key to ensuring that liberty protection safeguards will afford people their protections and human rights, and is a requirement of the European Convention on Human Rights. There are many factors which would need to be considered in the necessary and proportionate assessment, including the wishes and feelings of the person, whether any less restrictive measures can be put in place and the risk of harm. That is the issue that is the subject of these amendments.
Importantly, these amendments raise the issue of considering risk of harm to the cared-for person during the assessment by including that expressly and explicitly in the Bill. However, my concern is that that may be at the cost of other factors that ought to be properly considered during the assessment process. If these amendments are passed, one of the factors which may not be properly considered in the assessment process is the risk of harm to others, which the Law Commission said should be explicitly considered within a necessary and proportionate assessment, as well as risk to self. There are cases currently under the DoLS system where the risk of harm to others is an important factor in the justification for deprivation of liberty, such as a person with Lewy body dementia who may need restrictions in order to prevent harm to people in the community.
Furthermore, ensuring that no harm could come to a person is in some cases intertwined with ensuring that no harm comes to others. For example, there could be a retaliatory attack as a result of harm caused by a person to someone else. These amendments would mean that by focusing solely on harm to self in the Bill, it could be more difficult for assessors to make those balanced decisions. I therefore have some concerns about the amendments tabled by noble Baroness, as they could perpetuate the current confusion surrounding cases that involve some degree of harm to others. They could also lead to an increased use of the Mental Health Act, since the liberty protection safeguards might be interpreted as being ruled out in all harm-to-others cases. We would not want to see the Act used in this way.
Therefore, in the spirit of consensus and moving forward, I have carefully considered whether the Bill should be amended—or whether the Government could support such amendments—to explicitly set out inclusion of the risk of harm to the person. I am afraid I am going to disappoint noble Lords by saying that it would be better set out in the code of practice. I emphasise that we have considered the issue in detail, and we believe that the code of practice has sufficient force. On that basis—although I know that she will not do so—I encourage the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barker
I thank the Minister for his reply. The problem that I have is that it leaves the guidelines for decisions to deprive people of their liberty because of harm to others in a code of practice, not the legislation. I do not believe that that is the right place in which to make that law. I absolutely accept that it is sometimes necessary to make a decision about a deprivation of liberty, and that part of that decision-making might be about the risk the person poses to others. However, that should not be determined in legislation fashioned on a set of principles and practices that are about harm to self, which is what the Mental Capacity Act is all about. A substantial judgment that will impact on people’s lives is buried away in a place where it is very unlikely ever to rise sufficiently up the scale of legal concerns or ever to be tested in court. That is my problem; that is what I think is wrong. It is therefore important that we in this House make a statement now to the Government about the importance of this issue, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Barker
Yemen: UN Security Council Resolution
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
“I am grateful to the honourable Lady for raising this vital issue. The conflict in Yemen has escalated to become one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world. Today, 8 million people—nearly one-third of the population—depend on United Nations food aid. Starvation and disease have taken hold across the country. More than 420,000 children have been treated for malnutrition and 1.2 million people have suffered from a cholera epidemic. In total, about 22 million people across Yemen—nearly 80% of the population—are in need of help. Yet the bare statistics cannot convey the enormity of this tragedy. What we are witnessing is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe, inflicted by a conflict that has raged for too long.
Britain is one of the biggest donors of emergency aid, providing £170 million of help to Yemen this year, bringing our total support to £570 million since 2015. But the only solution is for all the parties to set aside their arms, cease missile and air attacks on populated areas, and pursue a peaceful political settlement. Last week, I conveyed this message to the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which lead the coalition fighting to restore Yemen’s legitimate Government, when I visited both countries. On Monday, I said the same in Tehran to the Foreign Minister of Iran, which backs the Houthi rebels. On the same day, I instructed our mission at the United Nations to circulate a draft resolution to the Security Council urging a ‘durable cessation of hostilities’ throughout Hodeidah province, and calling on the parties to ‘cease all attacks on densely populated civilian areas across Yemen’.
This draft resolution also requires the unhindered flow of food and medicine, and all other forms of aid, ‘across the country’. The aim of this UK-sponsored resolution is to relieve the immediate humanitarian crisis and maximise the chances of achieving a political settlement. Martin Griffiths, the United Nations envoy, is planning to gather all the parties for peace talks in Sweden in the next few weeks.
Amid this tragedy, the House will have noticed some encouraging signs. Last week, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates paused their operation in Hodeidah, although there was a further outbreak of fighting yesterday. The Houthi rebels have publicly promised to cease their missile attacks on Saudi Arabia. Martin Griffiths is meeting all parties as he prepares the ground for the talks in Sweden. Britain holds a unique position as the pen holder for Yemen in the Security Council, a leading humanitarian donor and a country with significant influence in the region, so we will make every effort, and use all the diplomatic assets at our command, to support the United Nations envoy as he seeks to resolve a crisis that has inflicted such terrible suffering”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the response to that Urgent Question and welcome the resolution, despite the fact that the United Kingdom had been sitting on a draft for two years. I also welcome the fact that it covers the five areas identified by Mark Lowcock on 23 October. In the debate in this Chamber last Thursday, I expressed the hope to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that other vital issues would be covered in any draft resolution, particularly the need for accountability for war crimes and human rights violations.
In the other place, the Foreign Secretary said that this is not the last word but the beginning of the process. He said that the priority is to build trust, but trust can only be sustained in the knowledge that no party can act with impunity. Jeremy Hunt said that he gave a tough message on the need to investigate war crimes. Was it in the draft which he discussed in Saudi Arabia with the Crown Prince? If it has been removed, how does the United Kingdom intend to ensure that the tough message it has already given holds and is implemented in the future?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord for his question and for referring to last week’s extremely well-informed and useful debate in this House, which raised important points. I think the noble Lord will understand that there is a delicacy in the diplomacy which is about trying to ensure that as many parties as possible are encouraged to group round the resolution. As he is aware, the draft has been circulated at the United Nations. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary detailed, in the other place, a summary of what is in the motion. I reassure the noble Lord that the underlying purpose of a change in language from previous resolutions has been to try to build a consensus. We recognise that that is the best way of trying to find some form of agreement, if not to bring this dreadful catastrophe to an immediate close then at least to introduce the prospect of better conditions for people in Yemen. That is why, as he will be aware, the draft motion is constructed around getting in aid and humanitarian help; getting a ceasefire; and getting some movement on a political settlement. Very importantly, and at the behest of Martin Griffiths, the special envoy, it is about getting the parties to Sweden, hopefully later this month or, if not, in early December, to sit round a table.
On the other aspect to what has been happening in Yemen and whether that constitutes war crimes or contraventions of international humanitarian law, that would be a matter for determination once we have restored more order to the ground in the country. There is such disorder at the moment—it is a very fractured country—that it is very difficult to obtain reliable information about what has been happening. I think that everyone would regard the absolute priority to be trying to improve the desperate and distressing situation for so many people in Yemen.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. She is absolutely right that the situation in Yemen is truly appalling. What progress is being made to secure the Security Council resolution to which she referred? When will this be put to a vote and why has it taken so long to get to this stage, given the United Kingdom’s lead in this area? There are reports that Saudi Arabia and its allies have been hindering this. Can she cast any light on that? Does the United Kingdom support a nationwide ceasefire? What is proposed at the moment is much more limited than that. The US Government have stopped refuelling coalition planes. Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and others have stopped arms sales. Surely we should be doing the same.
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Part of my answer echoes what I already said to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in that I would dispute her assessment of feet dragging. Britain has been at the forefront in trying to engage with partners at the United Nations and, as my right honourable friend said, to broker a solution. What has been done skilfully is to try to find a form of language which, instead of deterring and deflecting people who genuinely want to do something to help, brings them into the tent and invites them to be participants on that ultimate road to finding help.
On the question of arms sales, many people have strongly held views about this but, as she will be aware, this country operates a very strict check on our arms exports to any country, whether to Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. It is very clear—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised the specific point in the debate last week—that the continued test is this: is there a clear risk that those items subject to licence might be used to commit a serious international humanitarian law violation? If that were the case, we would not agree to the exports being made. We constantly monitor the situation. The assessment process is very robust. It is a combination of DIT, FCO and MoD, and we certainly try to ensure that any exports could not possibly be used for malign purposes.
As to the progress of the draft resolution at the United Nations, the noble Baroness will be aware—and we should pay tribute to Karen Pierce—that there has been a very energetic diplomatic endeavour for the UK. That should be recognised and praised. There is diplomatic activity going on to try to engage people with the draft resolution, attract support for it and try to ensure that the Swedish meeting can take place. People are hopeful that that might provide an opportunity, away from the area of conflict, for people to begin to talk constructively about the way forward.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am sure we would all want to endorse what my noble friend has just said about the efforts that are being made, but does not this ghastly human tragedy bring sharply into focus the need for more adequate peacekeeping from the United Nations? Could we not, as a nation and a permanent member of the Security Council, try to initiate some form of in-depth discussion on how much better the United Nations could become at peacekeeping? There was a concept some years ago called “Shield”, which called for a rather more international army than exists at the moment. Millions of people have suffered in recent years, especially in the Middle East. If there were more-adequate peacekeeping from the UN, that might not have happened.
Baroness Goldie
I thank my noble friend; he makes an interesting point which I am sure will be noted and reflected upon. My observation in relation to Yemen is that the ability of any group to achieve peacekeeping is only as good as security on the ground. Unfortunately, we have seen in Yemen a turbulent, unpredictable environment—a fractured country with huge security risks. That is why the priority at the moment has to be finding a ceasefire and a political settlement.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself with the observations of the Minister about Karen Pierce. She is an outstanding public servant who has much experience at the United Nations. I understand that consensus is the objective, but if consensus cannot be achieved, is it not necessary to press this resolution to a vote so as to expose those who are opposing humanitarian relief?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. Things are at a delicate stage. It is perhaps prudent in the circumstances, given the progress that has been made, to allow a little time to elapse to see if the diplomatic endeavours can bear fruit. They may very well do that. If not, we certainly want the talks in Sweden to happen and to progress, but there is no doubt that a careful eye will be kept upon the progress of the draft resolution at the UN. The noble Lord is quite correct: we shall have to review the position depending on what is happening.
Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire (Fire and Rescue Authority) Order 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:50 - Division on Baroness Pinnock’s Motion - Ayes: 123 / Noes: 138 - Motion disagreed.
Baroness Pinnock
That this House regrets that the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire (Fire and Rescue Authority) Order 2018 has been brought forward despite the constituent councils, the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel, and North Yorkshire Fire Authority being opposed to the proposals; further regrets that no detailed assessments have been undertaken by the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office as to the impact of the proposals; and expresses serious concern that the proposals could severely impact on the fire services’ capacity to serve residents across York and North Yorkshire (SI 2018/970).
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the policy objective in the Policing and Crime Act 2017 was to enable police and crime commissioners to take over the control and oversight of fire authorities. The aim was to achieve greater collaboration and collocation of these two services which respond to emergencies. That objective is not challenged in this Motion; the means to achieve that outcome are, we contend, in the case of North Yorkshire, fundamentally flawed.
The North Yorkshire police and crime commissioner, Julia Mulligan, published a report in October 2016 in support of a single leadership model by the PCC for both police and fire services. A business case was developed to support the proposition, and this was assessed on behalf of the Home Office by CIPFA. The CIPFA report is revealing. It looked at the consultation undertaken by the PCC. Three models were proposed. These were labelled: “representation”, “governance”, and “single employer”.
From the outset, the consultation was skewed to get support for a PCC takeover. The public—who will be barely aware that a PCC exists and probably also not aware that the commissioner is a single elected politician —opted for the so-called governance model. Why was it not described as it is—that is, as a commissioner model? Was it deliberately or inadvertently designed to mislead? The CIPFA conclusion on this consultation was that the choice between a councillor-led representation model and a single elected politician governance model was a political issue outside of its remit.
The CIPFA report then proceeded to assess the PCC’s business case on the basis of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Currently the joint expenditure for the police and fire services in North Yorkshire is £169 million. On the measure of economy, which is minimising the cost of resources used, the CIPFA conclusion was that,
“there is an absence of quantified benefits”,
in relation to any reduced costs of these inputs.
On efficiency savings, the business case assessed that £660,000 at net present value can be saved per annum. This is achieved largely by joint appointments of senior staff and, crucially, includes one-off benefits of capital receipts from the sale of sites and buildings, which could well be achieved under the existing models. Of course, many smaller local authorities have used this route for so-called back-office savings for several years, and this has been done without compromising the status of the individual authorities. Indeed, the police and fire services in North Yorkshire have already been developing collaboration via a collaboration committee, which is already proving to be an effective way to secure improvements, with agreement by both services and without the disruption of a significant change in governance model. The overall CIPFA conclusion paints a more balanced picture, that efficiency savings lead to a net cost reduction per annum of a mere £36,000. Is it for this that the Home Office is allowing such upheaval?
On the effectiveness measure, the CIPFA assessment stated that:
“Proving a direct link between the governance model and effectiveness is a subjective process”,
but that, “On balance”, it,
“has the potential to have a positive impact”.
I contend that that is hardly a resounding endorsement. CIPFA concludes that,
“the Governance Model will be in the interests of efficiency. However, the savings directly attributable to the change are modest”.
That is the understatement of the year.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, my contribution to this regret Motion will necessarily be rather more targeted, as the area in question is my area of North Yorkshire, the largest single rural county in England. I was a county councillor there for 20 years and chaired its police authority for a number of those.
The Minister certainly knows my firm opposition to the introduction of police and crime commissioners. Indeed, some of your Lordships will recall that, with help from many of your Lordships, I defeated the coalition Government’s proposal—one of David Cameron’s ideas—to bring in a single police commissioner in place of the 17 or 19 members of police authorities. As we see, it was a pyrrhic victory. Nevertheless, the concerns many of us from across the House expressed have been well and truly realised across the country, not least in North Yorkshire.
Our PCC has been embroiled in an unseemly and unprofessional case of bullying some of her members of staff. She was hauled before her police and crime panel, which did a superb forensic job of getting to the bottom of the complaints and asking her to consider her behaviour. I am told her response to them was arrogant in the extreme: she denied the complaints and then tried to complain about the way she had been treated by the panel. She was found guilty of bullying behaviour, and I understand more complaints are in the pipeline.
This is a PCC who wanted to put a new police headquarters on a piece of land in the middle of a field in a small rural village. This is a PCC who auctioned off the contents of silver cabinets and much else from the old police headquarters without first asking if former officers would like to bid on any of the contents, in which many of them had a particular—and, in some cases, personal—interest. This is remembered with much anger and bitterness.
She treats people who disagree with her with utter contempt. She certainly treats members of the PCP like that. It does not stop there. All the local political parties in North Yorkshire, as we have heard from my noble friend, were opposed to her taking on the running of the fire and rescue authority. No one I have spoken to thinks she is a fit and proper person to undertake such a responsibility. The fire and rescue service in North Yorkshire certainly does not want it, but that has now been foisted on it by government decree. All the consultation the PCC says she has undertaken to establish her business case went by the board. She took absolutely no notice of anyone.
Our fire and rescue authority was not underperforming in any way. Indeed, I was a member of it many years ago, and there was always a good collaborative relationship between partner agencies. Why should the PCC want to take it over? It was running perfectly well. She says she can save a lot of money by doing so. The report in the Press in York says that she is already, just a few days into her new job, contemplating slashing the fire service. She claims the independent report she received said that the service was in an unsustainable financial position and that she would have to identify savings and set an emergency budget. She says that, as North Yorkshire’s PCC, she has saved thousands of pounds since taking over from the old police authority. I find this hard to believe. When I helped set up our first police authority in North Yorkshire, we had a clerk, a secretary and a clerical assistant. She has at least 14 members of staff. I cannot imagine that her wage bill is less than mine was, even accounting for the remuneration of police authority members.
Indeed, it appears that she has led North Yorkshire Police into its worst financial crisis since the millennium. There is a £10 million shortfall this financial year, which may come as a surprise to the people of North Yorkshire as there has been no public acknowledgement of this gathering storm. It is strange to compare that with how widely her takeover of the fire service has been publicised. She promises a proper, transparent plan for dealing with this. I wish her luck with the Fire Brigades Union.
Unfortunately, it is the Government’s idealistic policy that has brought us to this point. No proper scrutiny by anyone with any experience or knowledge of the fire and rescue service was brought in to assess her business case. The CIPFA report even acknowledged that there was no overwhelming case for change, yet the Government decided to back this politically ambitious woman, who has absolutely no experience of the fire and rescue service.
York, which has world heritage status, is fearful that some of the PCC’s proposals for saving money will reduce even further the funding of the fire and rescue service. Local councillors, who know their area best and who would have had input into any suggested changes to fire service provision, will have no say whatever from now on. York already suffers from being among the worst funded places in the country for public services, per resident, so their concerns are well justified.
Can the Minister tell me what contingencies will be put in place if all does not go according to plan and there is a major fire in the county? She will remember the devastating fire which engulfed part of the glorious York Minster some years ago. It was noted worldwide, such is the importance of that historic building. Indeed, all North Yorkshire firemen who helped to put out the fire on that fateful morning received a specially struck St William’s Cross for their bravery in tackling the blaze, and they are still worn on their ceremonial uniforms to this day. Reducing the number of engines and personnel in the fire and rescue service will do nothing to assuage the concerns of the people of York, who also rely heavily on them to deal with the severe flooding that York suffers from regularly.
In conclusion, I am very concerned that the PCC for North Yorkshire has been allowed to take over the fire and rescue service while still having further charges of bullying brought against her. The Minister, in an Answer to a Written Question about the police and crime panel’s power to hold the PCC to account, which I am grateful for, simply stated:
“Police and Crime Panels have the appropriate powers to effectively scrutinise the actions and decisions of Police and Crime Commissioners and enable the public to make an informed decision when voting”.
Well, the PCP did, but it has absolutely no power to hold the PCC to account or to correct her if necessary. It can do barely more than disagree with her. PCPs need proper teeth, as we urged the Government to give them during the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill back in 2011. PCCs can get rid of chief constables on a whim, it seems; no one can get rid of a PCC except the electorate, and they have to wait for an election to do so.
Therefore, I again ask the Minister: when will the Home Office give police and crime panels enough power to hold PCCs properly to account for their behaviour and, further, enable them to enforce any recommendations they might have? Until this PCC can understand that leadership means listening to people and taking them with her, rather than bullying them, she is not suitable to hold such a vital office.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, it is, as ever, a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. However, I am slightly concerned that the reputation that I may have in your Lordships’ House of sometimes being rather blunt and trenchant will be sidelined by what the noble Baroness has just said.
I am not going to talk about North Yorkshire at all—I appreciate that that is perhaps not in the spirit of this debate—but I want to pick up just one point from what the noble Baroness has said. When police and crime panels were set up as a sort of safety net in respect of police and crime commissioners, they were very much a governmental afterthought. Very little thought was given to their composition or how they could be made effective, or indeed to the powers they might have. After six or seven years, now might be a good time for the Government to review the role of police and crime panels, how they might be made more effective and useful, and how they might effectively hold police and crime commissioners to account.
However, my reason for speaking in this short debate—I will do so fairly briefly—is to ask some questions about Home Office policy on police and fire mergers. The Home Office was extremely enthusiastic about this at first, but I get the sense that Ministers have rather gone off the idea: it is proving to be rather more complicated and is not demonstrating quite the benefits that they had hoped for. Therefore, I wonder whether the police and crime commissioner for North Yorkshire is not being hung out to dry on this issue, in that she no longer has quite the same enthusiastic support and facilitation that the Home Office might offer to make this policy work. I would be grateful if the Minister told us whether the Government’s commitment is still as intense as it was when this power to bring together police and fire was first introduced.
While she is answering that question, perhaps the Minister can tell me where we are with the role of police and crime commissioners in the areas they represent and the wider criminal justice organisation. Areas of synergy between the police and fire services are rather limited. There are a few, although not quite as many as people think; it is not just that people wear a uniform and go out and help people. There are far more synergies between the policing role in a local area—particularly in relation to the objective of reducing crime—and some of the other criminal justice responsibilities. For example, bringing together responsibility for oversight of the police and responsibility for oversight of the probation services—in particular, the monitoring of ex-offenders and those who have been through the courts—might produce far more savings for the country at large and the criminal justice system as a whole.
I wonder where the Government’s thinking is on that. If I remember correctly, there was a clause that said rather vaguely that this could be looked at at some stage in the future, but the Ministry of Justice was not very keen, so it did not get any real teeth in the original legislation. However, the Home Office ought to be directing its attention to delivering real savings, to turning people away from crime and to reducing the crime figures. I would be very interested in knowing what the current Home Office policy is on that matter.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lady Pinnock. The whole reason for establishing police and crime commissioners was supposed to be to increase the democratic accountability of the police service. In fact, as we have heard, the only way that PCCs can effectively be held to account is through the ballot box, and then only at four-yearly intervals. As we know, in most parts of the country, votes for the PCC are usually cast along established party-political lines and are not a referendum on the performance of the PCC at all.
As my noble friend Lady Pinnock said, police and crime panels, allegedly designed to hold police and crime commissioners to account, are in fact a toothless Singapura, let alone a toothless tiger, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said. My noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond provided an example from North Yorkshire of how powerless the panels are.
This supposed increase in local democratic accountability of the police is being extended so that PCCs can take over fire and rescue services—something that we on these Benches opposed when the legislation came before this House. PCCs already have a very big job on their hands, being responsible not only for the delivery of policing services in their area but for commissioning and co-ordinating other services to reduce crime and disorder. The Government may be in denial about it, but the level of crime and disorder is increasing, and violent crime in particular is reaching alarming levels across the country. PCCs already have enough on their plate.
This so-called experiment in local democracy can result, as it has here, in local democratically elected representatives of all parties—who have wider responsibility for the delivery of local services, not just the police service, and have the “big picture” in terms of their local areas and the funding of all local services—being totally ignored. The very body that is supposed to hold the local PCC to account also opposes what this PCC proposes to do. How can the Government maintain that the PCC taking over the fire and rescue service in North Yorkshire is in the best interests of local people when the benefits are questionable, or meagre, as my noble friend said, and the constituent councils in North Yorkshire—the county council, City of York Council, the North Yorkshire police and crime panel and the North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority—all oppose this move?
Whether it is the police service or the fire and rescue service, multi-party, multi-member authorities will always be able to take a more balanced, more accountable and more democratic approach than a sole individual, who, among other things, can raise the police precept locally without any consideration of the overall burden on local council tax payers and without taking any account of other pressing local priorities. The economic, efficiency and effectiveness benefits can nearly always be secured by the emergency services more collaborating without the PCC taking over control of the fire and rescue service. This is all pain and no gain. This move is very much to be regretted.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, we agree with the terms of the regret Motion. I do not wish to make any specific comments about the police and crime commissioner concerned since I know nothing about the police and crime commissioner in that area. Suffice it to say that my information too, not surprisingly, is that the North Yorkshire police and crime panel has rejected proposals for the commissioner to take on responsibility for both the fire service and the police—or at least what at that time were proposals—and that the panel had urged the commissioner to reconsider what she was seeking in favour of a model that would retain the current fire authority and give the commissioner a voting place at the table. Likewise, as has already been said most eloquently, the local authorities and the fire and rescue authority expressed a clear preference for the representation model. Indeed, the information that I have received—to put it diplomatically—is that the police and crime panel has a difference of view with the police and crime commissioner over the running of her office in relation to issues of bullying and a hostile environment.
I make no comment on the rights or wrongs of it because I personally know nothing about it. I was told that the police and crime panel intended to write to the Home Office to highlight its concerns. I do not know whether it has done so or whether the Home Office has received any such letter. Clearly there is not a very happy relationship between the police and crime commissioner and the police and crime panel in North Yorkshire. One would have thought that, to get to the bottom of it, the Secretary of State would have wanted to know rather more than perhaps he does about working relationships between the two organisations, since that surely must be a consideration in whether you are going to extend the power and authority of the police and crime commissioner. Maybe the Minister will tell us that the Home Secretary has already done that, and that he is satisfied that the police and crime commissioner is in the right and that the police and crime panel has got the wrong end of the stick; I will wait and see what the Minister has to say on that.
I refer to the independent assessment on which the judgment was made that the criteria of economy, efficiency and effectiveness have been met, and indeed of public safety. On economy, in the section headed “Our Overall Assessment”, the report says:
“Our overall view on economy is that it has received little attention in the LBC”—
the local business case—
“and there is an absence of quantified benefits in relation to any reduced costs of inputs”.
Later in the paragraph, having referred to other issues, it goes on to say:
“On that basis we are unable to reach an objective conclusion on whether the proposal will meet the specific criterion of increased economy”.
Then, looking at the issue of efficiency, the independent assessment says:
“As we noted above nearly all of the savings in the LBC arise from efficiency savings”.
I am not reading out the full paragraph, but it states that:
“The only savings which can be attributed directly to the Governance model are those arising from changes in the structure of the OPCC and the FRA”—
the office of the police and crime commissioner and the fire and rescue authority—
“i.e. those savings referred to as Direct Governance Benefit”,
in the local business plan.
As has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the report goes on to say that:
“This leads to a net cost reduction of £36K p.a. from 2019/20 or a total of £204K, net of implementation costs, over the 10 year period of the LBC”.
As has already been said, the independent assessment says:
“However, the savings directly attributable to the change are modest”.
That is probably one of the understatements of the year, if you are talking about savings as low as that; and it is based on the figures that have been put forward by the police and crime commissioner and the assumptions being made proving to be correct.
Turning to effectiveness, the report says:
“Proving a direct link between the governance model”—
which is what the police and crime commissioner wants—
“and effectiveness is a subjective process”.
It ends—it is debatable whether you think this is an endorsement—by saying:
“On balance our view is that the proposed change in governance has the potential”—
I emphasise “potential”—
“to have a positive impact on effectiveness”.
In other words, the independent assessment could not produce the evidence that the change would have a positive impact on effectiveness; it would have only the potential to have a positive impact on effectiveness.
In the next paragraph—I am not reading out the whole paragraph—the assessment says:
“Having reached that conclusion we would add that there is no overwhelming case for change and that most of the proposed changes could be achieved under the other three options, subject to the willingness of all the stakeholders to work together”.
The assessors were also asked to comment, I think, on the issue of public safety, and their comment was,
“this is a very subjective area to assess”.
They concluded by saying:
“On that basis we have concluded that there is no increased risk to public safety due to the proposed change in governance”—
that is a relief—
“and that there may be benefits in the future”.
If that is a ringing endorsement of the PCC’s plan, I think the Secretary of State has got it all wrong, because, as I understand it, it is on the basis of that independent assessment that he has agreed the proposal. Subject to what the Minister may say in response, he does not seem to have taken much account of working relationships—for example, the PCC’s relationship with her police and crime panel, and perhaps with other people as well, including her own staff.
In concluding, I simply say that if the independent assessment is deemed sufficient to meet the criteria of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, it is very unlikely that any future proposal from a PCC to take over a fire and rescue authority will ever be anything other than approved by this Secretary of State.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who secured it. As noble Lords will know, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 helps to make collaboration far more commonplace than it was hitherto. It placed a new duty on the police, fire and rescue and emergency ambulance services to keep collaboration opportunities under review and, where it is in the interest of their efficiency and effectiveness, to put those opportunities into practice. Let us not forget the rationale for a broad and non-prescriptive duty. It is for those with clear, local accountability to accelerate local emergency service collaboration.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Act also enables PCCs to take responsibility for the governance of fire and rescue services to drive that greater collaboration between policing and fire, which is what we are discussing this evening. Sir Ken Knight’s 2013 review of the fire and rescue service concluded that PCCs,
“could clarify accountability arrangements and ensure more direct visibility to the electorate”.
His findings were clear. The patchiness of collaboration across the country—I can attest to that myself—will not begin to change consistently without more joined-up and accountable leadership.
The directly accountable leadership of PCCs can play a critical role in securing better commissioning and delivery of emergency services at a local level. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for the work that he is doing to this end, and of course to Greater Manchester and the excellent work done in that area.
I have visited the police authority and seen the current PCC in action and I can certainly attest to the more visible model that PCCs represent. They are directly elected by the communities they serve, and it is the public who hold PCCs to account in the most powerful way—at the ballot box. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, questioned the visibility of the PCC but, even though I was on a police authority, I am not sure I could name every member. However, everyone in Greater Manchester knows the PCC.
Last month marked a year since the first police, fire and crime commissioner was established in Essex. Roger Hirst set out a raft measures—
Lord Harris of Haringey
I just wanted to correct the Minister. There is no PCC in Greater Manchester; there is an elected mayor.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I beg your pardon. I am sorry—I was making a point about visibility and I knew that the noble Lord would pick that up the moment I said it.
A public consultation on Roger Hirst’s fire and rescue plan, outlining the fire and rescue service’s priorities over the next five years, will soon go live. Staffordshire’s police, fire and crime commissioner, Matthew Ellis, is also beginning to make real headway. For instance, a shared occupational service is providing readily accessible mental health support for all police and fire staff. I know noble Lords will join me in commending such a worthwhile service.
Last week, we saw the third police, fire and crime commissioner established in North Yorkshire, which is the subject of this debate. I am grateful to all those who have taken part. I have listened very carefully to the noble Baroness and her concerns, but I say with great respect that I disagree with the assertions levelled in her Motion. She expressed concern about the lack of assessment undertaken by the PCC. I regret that this betrays a misunderstanding of the robust process that is in place before a governance transfer is approved. Before a proposal is submitted to the Home Secretary, the police and crime and commissioner must publicly consult with all relevant local authorities, local members of the public and those employees who may be affected by the proposal. Commissioner Julia Mulligan duly undertook a public consultation to garner views on her proposal. The consultation ran for 10 weeks and received over 2,500 individual responses from residents, local businesses, employees from the police and fire service and local authorities.
Opposition to the proposal was not widespread, as the noble Baroness maintained. It is clear that the status quo in North Yorkshire had not been aiding collaboration across the emergency services. All local stakeholders agreed that some change in governance was needed to aid collaboration. The North Yorkshire branch of the Fire Brigades Union supported a governance change and the PCC’s consultation resulted in over half of respondents supporting the PCC’s proposal to take on responsibility for the fire service.
I accept that that means that some respondents did not support the proposal, but such views were in a minority. These views have been considered very carefully. North Yorkshire County Council and the City of York Council did not support the proposal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, said, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, highlighted that the fire and rescue authority disagreed with the proposal.
As a result of the objections from North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, as noble Lords mentioned, was commissioned to undertake an independent assessment of the proposal. CIPFA is independent, has substantial public sector finance expertise, and experience of working in both the policing and fire sector. Importantly, CIPFA discussed the proposal with local leaders, including the chief fire officer and his senior management team, the leader of North Yorkshire County Council and the leader of City of York Council.
CIPFA concluded that the PCC had conducted a wide-ranging consultation, with public events held on market days, and allowed adequate time for responses, especially taking account of the holiday season. CIPFA also noted that there is,
“no increased risk to public safety due to the proposed change in governance and there may be benefits in the future”,
as other noble Lords noted. On that point, I make clear that maintaining public safety is a core part of the fire and police service’s role. Its commitment to public safety will not be compromised.
The Home Secretary had due regard to CIPFA’s assessment and the PCC’s proposal alongside the consultation and representations made. In June, the Home Secretary was satisfied that the proposal was in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness and did not have an adverse effect on public safety. I reassure noble Lords that the distinction between policing and fire will remain: this is not an operational takeover. I recall the very firm arguments to that end that were made in this Chamber when we discussed the Bill.
The new police, fire and crime commissioner will be subject to robust scrutiny between elections. The police and crime panel has a range of appropriate powers to scrutinise the decisions of commissioners that affect their communities. The Act makes it clear that the functions of the police and crime panel will be extended to include the fire service. The panel will need to ensure that it has the right skills and knowledge relating to fire and rescue, as well as crime and policing. To support this process, a grant uplift has been issued to North Yorkshire County Council, in respect of the North Yorkshire police, fire and crime panel.
Following this Government’s reforms, the North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service will also be subject to inspection, which is a key pillar of the reform agenda. I hope that gives the noble Baroness some comfort as to some of the work going forward. I am sure she will be looking forward to the outcome of the inspection.
I am confident that the changes to fire governance in North Yorkshire will take collaboration between North Yorkshire police and fire services further than has been the case to date. The police, fire and crime commissioner, Julia Mulligan, will further develop her plans, as we would expect, but I welcome the emphasis, in particular, on streamlining senior management posts, collaboration on back-office support services and sharing buildings between the two services.
Lord Jopling (Con)
Has it crossed my noble friend’s mind that this whole debate is far more about the parties opposite preparing for the next election of police commissioners in North Yorkshire than about the amalgamation of fire and police services in North Yorkshire?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend makes a very interesting point because this measure was not prayed against. Noble Lords opposite are expressing their feelings in a regret Motion slightly after the event. I share my noble friend’s cynicism.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Well, I do. Much of this was debated when we examined the Bill. Many of the issues around scrutiny were debated and I thank noble Lords for the time they took in scrutinising the Bill to make it far more robust in terms of the scrutiny that went on. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is in his place; he was one of the people who were absolutely adamant about scrutiny.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, noted that the savings directly attributed to the proposal were modest and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, backed that up. CIPFA was of the view that the savings associated with the direct governance benefits were reasonable and that savings for the shared estates and support services were not unreasonable. CIPFA reported that the PCC’s proposals set out estimated net savings of £6.6 million at present value over the 10 years and the noble Baroness pointed that out. CIPFA also highlighted that, in its experience, benefits can be obtained by better procurement and the realisation of the benefits of purchasing on a larger scale, and that it would be reasonable to expect benefits to arise in this area. I do not think any noble Lord could dispute that there are further streamlining processes that could be achieved. There will be some implementation costs associated with the transfer, but many other benefits such as increasing the pace and scale of collaboration, which can have substantial benefits for local communities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, questioned the accountability of the panels, saying that they are a bit toothless, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, asked whether they were an afterthought. They were very much the recommendation of your Lordships’ House. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was very keen that such scrutiny should take place. The panels enable the public to hold them to account as well and, crucially, they conduct the majority of their business in public—which is not something we could say for previous police authorities.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
They did not have the public-facing role that—
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, the Minister has, unfortunately, said something quite outrageous. I chaired the Metropolitan Police Authority for four years, and the number of times we went into private session was extremely small. Most of those meetings were held in public with television cameras and most of the national press present. That was the balance.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right; it was the case in London. Elsewhere it most certainly was not.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
Certainly, when I chaired my police authority, we went all around the county and everybody was welcome; we had lots of people there. So what is happening now?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness pinpoints the issue. The public were welcome to attend. The public did not attend.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Well, not in great numbers. Anyway, that is a moot point. In Greater Manchester they did not attend.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has mentioned my name even though I have not taken part in this debate at all, although I share the concerns of those who have moved this regret Motion. She may be confusing my concerns on scrutiny of the structure and governance of the combined authorities with the statements I made at the time of the passing of the Bill in relation to police and crime commissioners. As I recall, I never felt that the proposal was robust or that the scrutiny arrangements were adequate, because the powers given to the panels in my view were nothing like strong enough.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise to the noble Lord if I am conflating or confusing combined authorities with the PCC role. He certainly was very vociferous on the role of scrutiny in terms of the combined authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, asked about the Government’s view on police and fire mergers in terms of the wider role; he referred to justice. I shall go back and ask what future plans are, because I confess that at this point I do not have up-to-date information on that.
Noble Lords asked about claims of bullying and whether the Home Office had received any representation. I confirm that the PCP in North Yorkshire has written to the Policing and Fire Minister regarding those allegations of bullying and harassment levelled at the PCC from members of her own staff. I also confirm that broader questions regarding the scrutiny role of PCPs have surfaced. PCC Mulligan has apologised for the impact that her behaviour may have had on the complainant and is already addressing many of the areas that the panel identified in its recent report.
Lord Rosser
I am talking about this in general terms. Is the ability of a PCC to work with those around her—for example, the police and crime panel and her own staff—a factor that is taken into account in considering whether she or he should also have responsibility for the fire and rescue service?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not know whether personal qualities or characteristics are taken into account and I do not feel that I am in a position to opine on this, given that I do not know the detailed circumstances of the complaint. However, the PCC is receiving support from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, which is providing a mentoring function. I probably cannot go further than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also implied that PCCs seeking to take on governance of their local fire and rescue service should be prevented from doing so where that would have a negative impact on public safety. Public safety is of course the absolute core element of the role of the fire and rescue service, so we would not expect the Home Secretary to approve a transfer where that was compromised.
If I have not answered all the questions that were put to me, I will write to noble Lords in due course. Having heard the Government’s case, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her Motion to Regret.
Baroness Pinnock
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, which has got more interest than I anticipated, and I thank the Minister for her very considered and careful response, as always. I want to highlight three points that the Minister has made.
The first is about collaboration. I said right from the outset that that is not in question here. As far as I am concerned, the point is well made. There ought to be collaboration between the emergency services, and efforts are being made in North Yorkshire without this change having been imposed on the authority. My second point is about the CIPFA independent assessment, which was underwhelming in its endorsement of the business case put by the North Yorkshire PCC. It could not have been more tepid if it tried. For that reason, we ought not to take into account that the CIPFA report was in favour of this. It found no supporting evidence for the case that was made. The third point I want to make is about the one that the Minister and others have made in the reports that I have read: “It is great to have visibility; we know who the PCC is”. We know who dictators are, actually, and we know that they are transparent in their decision-making, but they are not accountable and neither is a PCC.
For these reasons, the whole situation in North Yorkshire is becoming very difficult indeed, especially when we think that these are emergency services on which people’s lives depend. This is not a game being played, although it has seemed to be by the PCC. This is important stuff. To just say that it will lead to visible decision-making—no, it will not. Decision-making has to be thoughtful, considered and right.
The last comment I want to make is about accountability. The panels that are set have no powers at all to really call anyone to account. It is a single person who makes these vital decisions on emergency services, and the panels can do little or nothing. As we have heard, they have had to write to the Home Office to see if they can sort something out about the collapse in relationships in North Yorkshire.
I respect the Minister and the work she does, but I am afraid that in this instance I am not happy with her responses for the reasons I have given. Given that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Commencement No. 18) Order 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 March be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for giving me the opportunity to return to this important topic. I should also like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions as we move on.
Electronic monitoring using radio frequency technology has been used nationally as a key element of our criminal justice system for almost 20 years. It has proved to be an effective tool to manage offenders’ compliance with curfew requirements. In any one year, 60,000 people are so monitored and at any one time there are around 11,000 subjects monitored on curfew. For those released on prison licence, legislation also allows for the subject’s location to be monitored either to support a requirement of the licence or to monitor an offender’s whereabouts. The latter is referred to as a stand-alone location monitoring requirement; that is, it is not linked to another requirement.
Furthermore, legislation already exists to permit location monitoring to be used as part of court bail or a community sentence to monitor compliance with a requirement such as an exclusion zone. The order before your Lordships’ House today, which has already been debated in the Moses Room, seeks to commence legislation that will allow courts to impose a stand-alone location monitoring requirement as part of a community sentence when it is considered to be appropriate, proportionate and necessary to do so. Using an electronic GPS tag, an offender’s location will be tracked by satellite using technology similar to that of a satnav. The ankle tag will record the offender’s position and, at frequent intervals, send that data to a monitoring centre via a mobile network. The location data will be retrospective.
The case for stand-alone location monitoring has been supported by two pilots, the first of which was run by the Ministry of Justice and the second by the London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, or MOPAC. The first pilot ran for 18 months across Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Leicestershire, Staffordshire and the West Midlands. Of the 586 subjects that were tagged, 161 were given a stand-alone location monitoring requirement. Of those, 107 also had an electronically monitored curfew. The tagging was considered to be necessary and proportionate by a court, or a prison governor, having due regard to advice from probation practitioners. The remainder of the subjects had location monitoring imposed to monitor compliance with another requirement; for example, an exclusion zone.
The second, smaller-scale pilot run by MOPAC in the London area was initially intended to run for 18 months, but has now been extended for a further 18 months and will conclude in September 2019. As at the end of October, 100 of the 104 community-sentenced subjects in the MOPAC pilot have been given a stand-alone location monitoring requirement by courts and more are expected. This indicates that decision-makers recognise the benefits of using stand-alone location monitoring in the right circumstances. Indeed, criminal justice boards in the areas included in the first pilot were very keen to see a continuation of location monitoring in general and wrote letters of support.
This has been mirrored by feedback received from offender managers and some offenders during both pilots. That feedback indicates that stand-alone location monitoring provides offender managers with more information on offenders’ movements, allowing for constructive conversations to take place regarding their behaviour, helping to manage the risk of reoffending, aid rehabilitation and help those they supervise to lead law-abiding lives. It can motivate subjects to engage in their rehabilitation, attend addiction therapies, turn up for work or training and to stay away from those people and places that would have a negative influence on their lives. In some cases, it could also provide enough assurance to enable courts to impose a community sentence as an alternative to custody, thereby reducing prison numbers. Let me read to you a comment received from one offender:
“It’s the fact that you can continue to provide support for the people that you care for and you can still work, you can still be around, you can still be a brother, a friend, you can still be a dad. You can still be all those things whilst on GPS that you can’t if you’re in custody”.
This feedback is supported by the independent evaluation of the first pilot, conducted by NatCen Social Research, which will be published shortly. One of the key findings is that partner agencies, probation, police, prisons and courts were keen to use location monitoring to help monitor and manage compliance with bail, sentence and licence conditions. The report highlights that location monitoring was felt to support the effective management of offenders in the community in four key ways: supporting offender rehabilitation; facilitating risk management; helping to inform decisions about whether a wearer should be recalled to custody or court; and providing evidence either to exonerate them or to link them to a crime.
Lessons have been learned from both this pilot and that of MOPAC, as well as from MOPAC’s ongoing pilot, to inform the implementation of the new electronic monitoring service. Those lessons have been incorporated into the ministry’s programme for delivery. For example, subjects reported issues with keeping the tag charged. As a result, the tag will come with a portable charger and subjects will receive alerts when their tag’s battery needs charging. The new service will have an initial phased release at the end of 2018 in the north-west and the Midlands, which will start to introduce at scale the availability of GPS tags. That will be augmented by a further release in the summer of 2019, providing greater functionality for service users, including a portal where updates and alerts can be viewed online.
This order builds on legislation which is already in place regarding electronic monitoring. The pilots have worked well and are working well, and we look forward to seeing GPS tagging in the right circumstances as soon as it is appropriate. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Thomas of Gresford
To move, as an amendment to the above motion, at end to insert “but that this House regrets that the Order provides for a new type of standalone electronic monitoring requirement for community orders and suspended sentence orders before the results of the ongoing pilot schemes are known”.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, my original objection to this statutory instrument was based upon the fact that its purpose was to introduce a major difference in the use of electronic tags which affected the liberty of the subject without awaiting the results of the pilot schemes which were then being carried out in two major areas in the country. I believe in evidence-based policy and I thought that the Government took the same view.
As the Minister said a moment ago, electronic tags have been used within the criminal justice system for some 20 years since 1988, but only to monitor offenders’ compliance with a curfew. It was possible to confirm whether an individual was at a particular address at a particular time. The introduction of GPS monitoring differs considerably. The tag remotely captures and records information on an individual’s whereabouts at all times. Signals are received from satellites and are communicated via a mobile phone network to a case management system.
There was a pilot scheme in Greater Manchester, Hampshire and the West Midlands between 2004 and 2006. It was not a complete success. One of the modes of tracking was called hybrid tracking, which involved the delineation of geographic exclusion areas: if the offender moved into an exclusion area, a signal would be sent to the case management system immediately. This was the sort of tracking that is now envisaged in this statutory instrument. The conclusion of the 2006 report said:
“Although there may be a role for this form of hybrid tracking in providing an added layer of protection for victims assessed as particularly at risk, the limited use to which it was put during the pilots meant that no firm conclusion could be reached. On the other hand, if the main purpose of satellite tracking is to provide information on offenders’ whereabouts in order to challenge them about their movements and help them avoid dangerous situations, or to provide robust evidence of violations of exclusion zones, then this can be achieved through ‘passive’ tracking”—
that is to say, not this complicated system—
“and may not even require the daily flow of information from the monitoring company to offender managers that was made available in some areas during the pilots”.
That 2006 report also found that active tracking, whereby an offender’s general movements are followed in real time, could not be used because of the high level of resources which would be needed for such an operation.
Also in that report in 2006, probation officers, police officers and youth workers were generally less enthusiastic about the way that the satellite tracking equipment had worked. They were particularly worried about GPS drift—where GPS plots are, for a short period of time, wildly aberrant—and signal loss. Both created uncertainty in their minds. Had the offender tampered with the equipment, had the equipment broken down in some way, or had the signal been blocked by a tall building or some other obstruction? Their other concerns were that maps of offenders’ movements were sometimes unclear, insufficiently detailed or difficult to interpret; that battery life was limited; that ankle tags frequently needed changing; that communications between offender managers and the monitoring companies were not as good as they ought to be; and that tracking units were intrusive and infringed civil liberties. That was the position in 2006. One would have thought that the current pilot schemes should have been completed and brought before this House before introducing the system more widely.
The scheme in 2004 to 2006 was therefore not followed up in the light of the comments received. GPS tags have been used in a number of situations since, specifically for integrated offender management schemes—IOMs—but on a voluntary basis only. The case for their use is not open and shut, and the expense for hybrid or active tracking where offender managers feel it necessary to carry out immediate action is considerable. One would have thought that the Government would have awaited the findings of the recent pilots before introducing as part of the criminal law of England and Wales a scheme that is similar but which differs in one very important respect: the proposal for compulsory, not voluntary, tagging on a large scale.
On Monday, the Minister helpfully provided me with an embargoed copy of the report; I am grateful to her for that and for the courteous letter that accompanied it. I read and digested its contents. Unfortunately, because of the timing of this Motion to approve the statutory instrument, I cannot comment on its findings or conclusions. When will it be published? When could I comment on it? When the DPRRC considers the appropriate course for parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of powers granted to Ministers in a Bill and advises the House, it does so in the belief that the use of the affirmative procedure will give the House an opportunity to raise any matters of concern on the evidence. There is evidence—there is an embargoed report—yet we proceed tonight without that report having been published. It is not available to Members of this House for comment.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the story of the Government’s policy on electronic tagging over the past seven years has been one of a prolonged disaster. Of course, the Minister is not to blame for that. She has tried to be helpful, although today’s letter—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—warning recipients not to quote the contents of a document she sent us labelled “Embargoed” was, to put it mildly, unfortunate. I remain grateful for her attempt to be helpful, even if the Ministry of Justice appears to be vying with the Home Office in the competition to be seen as the most incompetent government department.
It is seven years since this policy began its gestation and 16 months since the announcement that the oligopolist G4S—an organisation presumed by the Government to be able to conduct all kinds of services across the system of government in this country—had been awarded a £25 million contract, notwithstanding the fact that it was then under investigation for fraud and that a National Audit Office report criticising the prolonged delay in implementing a policy of satellite tracking for offenders was soon to be published. A ban on G4S was imposed in 2013 after allegations of overcharging on contracts for the electrical monitoring of offenders, although the ban was lifted in 2014 on the basis that G4S had paid £109 million and Serco, another familiar scion of private enterprise, paid £70 million.
Labour’s shadow Lord Chancellor, Richard Burgon, has referred to G4S as having billed the Government,
“for tagging thousands of ‘phantom offenders’ – including those who were dead or in jail”,
and to,
“serious delays in informing the authorities that over 100 prisoners had been fitted with faulty electronic tags”.
In addition, Capita and two smaller firms became involved, although one withdrew after six months and another after 16 months, following incremental delays in the programme. Can the Minister explain how these failures in contracting occurred, and what steps have been taken to improve the department’s commissioning practice?
G4S purports to be able to provide public services across a broad range, including health, prisons and probation, but in January the Public Accounts Committee published a damning report, pointing out that a scheme due to be completed in 2013 was running five years late at a cost of £60 million to the taxpayer, with an additional irrecoverable loss of £9 million. What is more, the new tags are apparently expected to be available early next year. Can the Minister update us on progress, including both the starting and the completion dates for this project?
In its damning report in January 2018, the Public Accounts Committee described the programme as having been “fundamentally flawed”, and,
“so far … a catastrophic waste of public money which has failed to deliver the intended benefits”,
adding that the MoJ had,
“wasted a huge amount of time and … money to end up with … the same types of tags and supplier it had when the programme started”.
Significantly, the committee’s critique declares that the Ministry of Justice,
“lacked the capacity and capability to manage the difficulties and delays that it created”.
This appears to be confirmed by the fact that it is seven months since the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked why the draft order had been laid while piloting of the scheme was in progress—the very issue raised in the noble Lord’s Motion.
Just how long is that process of piloting going to take? Who will evaluate the response? What role will Members of both Houses have in considering the response and triggering the implementation of the order? And what plans are there to review the performance of the contractors? Who will conduct such reviews, and what provision will be made to terminate contracts in the event of failure on the part of the contractors, or if it transpires that, in any event, little or no improvement in reoffending by those fitted with tags has resulted?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank both noble Lords for their comments, and I hope to be able to address as many of the points raised as possible. First, clearly I shall have to take on the chin that criticism of what went on previously with this project. I do not have the information about what steps were taken, and why the failures occurred, in front of me, but I will write to the noble Lord and set out properly what happened previously and how we will address these issues in future.
I now turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. When I opened the debate, I tried to explain that this order provides an extension of provisions that already exist. There are other classes of subjects that can already be location monitored on a stand-alone basis. One of the reasons for not hanging around and waiting until the evidence, as he called it, is published, is that the report is not for stand-alone location monitoring on its own. It covers all sorts of different location monitoring, so it is more of an ongoing step, for all sorts of electronic monitoring, much of which is already covered by legislation.
The noble Lord took us back 12 years, to 2004 to 2006, and to what people said then. During the passage of the Crime and Courts Act, there was a significant debate about the civil liberties elements of the tagging, but technology has moved on significantly since then, and we are dealing with a very different beast from what was then being reported on.
Lord Mawson (CB)
I am in favour of innovation and the use of technology. Indeed, I have spent a lot of my life in the field of innovation, and was involved for a period in technological innovation. So I am in favour of all of this. The technology is used for young people in cars, with little black boxes that monitor where our children who have just learnt to drive are going. Our family’s experience of it is that these things are open to abuse from insurance companies—and from technology companies. I worry that things are going on that are far from fair for our young people. My question is: how sure is the Minister that this technology can be trusted and will work in practice? She says that things have moved on, but my experience is that technology always has downsides and weaknesses, and we need to be very secure about it. I am just checking, in this case, what tests have been done.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. As I explained in my opening remarks, the technology we are talking about is GPS tracking. Yes, it is used in black boxes. My son has one in his car, so he does not do naughty things on the road—which is superb—and we all have it in our telephones. If the noble Lord is asking whether the technology has been tested, I think we can say that it certainly has. Indeed, it is probably used by most of us on a daily basis as we make our way around in the world using Google Maps. More specifically, the partners in place that will be building up the service providers all have great experience in this area. For example, mapping the data from the tags will be done by Airbus—which I think probably knows a fair amount about where things are, particularly aeroplanes in the sky. Of course we are confident that the technology works, and I believe that the pilot has made us confident that the application of it for this particular group of people is a good thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, commented on the timing of the publication of the report. I am now in two minds about why I shared that anyway. I did it to put noble Lords’ minds at rest, because the responses from the pilot were, as we have heard, fairly positive. I cannot give the noble Lord a date for publication, but it will be very soon. That is how all this has fitted together.
As for the timing of the SI, noble Lords discussed this in the Moses Room many months ago, and one of the reasons for the timing relates to an issue that was raised slightly later, about engaging with stakeholders. How can we ensure that this system is actually used by the people who need to be able to step up and say, “You can have a tag, because we can trust you to go into the community, provided that you do certain things”? We have found that, the more we can engage with the people within the criminal justice system who will make those orders, the more likely they are to use the tag. We wanted to get the timing of the SI right so that we could engage with stakeholders.
The noble Lord also mentioned charging. I think that I too mentioned that in my opening remarks. It takes one hour a day, and—to be a bit brutal—it is slightly better than being in custody to have to sit down somewhere and charge a tag. There is also the portable battery charger; I talked about that too. So I do not believe this is a huge issue. The design, too, is much better. We have all seen that the size of these things has now come right down to an insignificant size that will go under a sock, which is very good.
As for resourcing, the cost of monitoring has been brought down significantly by technology—and on the flip side, there are benefits. The cost of investigations could be lower for the police as they look for people they want to rule in or out of possible criminality.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about G4S. I will write to him and set out what happened with G4S in the past, but I reassure him that we have run a fully compliant, open and competitive bidding process for all service providers. There is no scope to exclude bidders within this system, even if they are subject to an ongoing investigation. I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns. We are obviously keeping things under a careful, watchful eye, but we are pleased with the service providers we have.
Finally, on reporting, there are no specific plans to publish an individual report on the effectiveness of the new service, but the ministry will monitor take-up and effectiveness as part of the benefits realisation and will also report on the service providers’ performance. I am sure the noble Lord will find that very interesting. It will report on their performance against service level agreements and the number of orders being managed as part of wider regular offender management publications. I think noble Lords will see the numbers, there will be commentary about how well the service is working and there will be the results of the longer-term pilot by MOPAC in due course.
Lord Beecham
Before the Minister sits down, will she give an indication of when we will get the reports she has just referred to?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am afraid I cannot. We know that the first tranche of GPS tags will be coming out at the end of 2018. Full rollout is expected by summer 2019. I think that a period will have to elapse from full rollout until we can get some proper numbers, so I think it will be after that, but obviously I cannot set anything in stone.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, there is one group of people who have not been discussed this evening, and that is the judges, magistrates and prison governors who will be concerned with making these orders. I am not sure that they will be tremendously helped by, or have much confidence in, the replies that we have received. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.