House of Commons
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 12 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
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.
Stalking Protection Bill
Friday 23rd November 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Stalking Protection Act 2019 View all Stalking Protection Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 November 2018 - (23 Nov 2018)
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 16, after “police” insert
“for a police area in England and Wales”.
This amendment and Amendments 2 and 6 would allow the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police and the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force to apply for stalking protection orders and interim stalking protection orders, and to take part in related procedures.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, leave out from “police” to the end of line 27 and insert
“who applied for the stalking protection order and (if different) the chief officer of police for the area in which the defendant resides, if that area is in England or Wales.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 6, line 2, leave out “within” and insert “before the end of”.
This amendment would ensure a person can give notice that they are going to use a new name before doing so.
Amendment 4, page 6, line 8, leave out “within” and insert “before the end of”.
This amendment would ensure a person can give notice that they are going to change their home address before doing so.
Amendment 5, in clause 10, page 6, line 30, leave out
“whose home address is not”
and insert
“who does not have a home address”.
This amendment would cater for the possibility that a person might not have a home address.
Amendment 6, in clause 14, page 8, line 9, at end insert—
““chief officer of police” means—
(a) the chief constable of a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996 (police forces in England and Wales outside London);
(b) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;
(c) the Commissioner of Police for the City of London;
(d) the chief constable of the British Transport Police;
(e) the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 7, in clause 15, page 9, line 4, leave out from “force” to the end of line 5 and insert
“two months after the day on which this Act is passed.”
Dr Wollaston
This week we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first woman taking her seat in this House. I am immensely proud, as a Devon MP, that that woman was Lady Nancy Astor, and I think all of us in this House owe her an enormous debt of gratitude for the work she did, particularly in fighting on behalf of women and girls. I am proud that this Government have continued that work. Indeed, Members from across this whole House have done so much to advance this cause.
Of course, stalking does not just affect women—it affects men as well, and it is a vile crime of an insidious nature. I am very grateful to all those, both within this House and beyond, who have contributed to the passage of this Bill, including with advice, which has caused me to table some important amendments. They are minor in nature, but I think they will greatly improve the Bill.
Amendments 1, 2 and 6 would enable the chief constables of the Ministry of Defence police and the British Transport police to apply for stalking protection orders and interim orders, and to initiate related proceedings in connection with the variation and renewal of an order. That is because stalking occurs across a range of contexts and situations, with devastating consequences, and it is essential that a stalking protection order is available to police in a variety of situations. There may be circumstances in which the British Transport police or MOD police are best placed to seek an order, for example if the stalking conduct has taken place on the railway network or a perpetrator lives or works in MOD premises.
Amendments 3 and 4 would modify the notification requirements on a person subject to a stalking—
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I know that my hon. Friend was about to move on, but I just wanted to inquire about a thing not included in this list: the Civil Nuclear constabulary. The MOD police are included, and they protect particular areas. I welcome the amendments, but is there any particular reason why the Civil Nuclear constabulary is not included?
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend for his point, which we could consider in the House of Lords as the Bill continues its passage.
Amendments 3 and 4 would modify the notification requirements on a person subject to a stalking protection order. Under the notification requirements, as drafted, a perpetrator must notify the police within three days of a change taking place. These amendments simply enable the perpetrator to give such notice in advance of a change taking place, and I hope that colleagues from across the House will recognise that that is a small, technical, but important change.
Finally, amendment 5 also relates to notification requirements. It caters for circumstances where the subject of a stalking protection order has no home address. In such a case, the amendment provides that the perpetrator can instead notify of a place where they can regularly be found. That simply mirrors notification requirements related to registered sex offenders. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) also has an amendment in this group, but I do not see him in the Chamber today, so I think we will assume that he does not wish to press that amendment. For now, I commend the amendments standing in my name to the House.
Mr Speaker
We are immensely grateful to her; she has been the epitome of succinctness, which serves as a useful model for other colleagues.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Ah, a veritable slew of colleagues wishing to take part. I call Mr Alex Chalk.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
What a pleasure it is to say a few words in this debate.
Before I move on to the specifics, it is important to look at some of the context, because of course it was not until fairly recently that stalking was made a crime. Before 2012, the concept of stalking was perhaps not taken terribly seriously at all—it was almost considered something of a joke—but over the past decade there has been a recognition that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, stalking is an insidious and wicked crime. I pay tribute to her work to ensure that society’s response truly fits the scale of the threat.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I was hoping to intervene on the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), but she concluded her speech very promptly. I echo the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment—it is critical that we focus on the outcome of the Bill, which is to deal with what even for one person in this country is such an oppression that none of us in this House can really fathom it, if we have not been on the receiving end of it. Stalking can consume someone’s life and be devastating, and it can have both physical and mental health consequences, so let us not forget the victims who have to contend with stalking throughout the country.
Alex Chalk
As always, the hon. Lady makes her point extremely well—she is absolutely right. When I came into this place in 2015, I really had only the most limited understanding of what stalking was all about but, exactly as the hon. Lady indicates, it has an incredibly insidious effect.
Like so many of us in this place, the circumstances in which I came to understand stalking revolve around a constituency matter. My constituent, Dr Ellie Aston, was a local GP, and someone started to stalk her. What was worrying was the extent to which the behaviour ratcheted up from something that was initially fairly innocuous in terms of attention from a patient to something that became concerning, and then deeply troubling, as the letters multiplied, as he started to attend her home address, as he then started to attend her children’s birthday parties and when there were concerns about the gas supply being interfered with. What is so troubling is that this went on for more than seven years. When the person was arrested, the police looked into his computer and found that he had searched for “How long after a person disappears are they considered dead?” When he was released, he sent a message to the victim saying simply, “Guess who’s back?”
No wonder, then, that many victims of stalking refer to it as murder in slow motion. That might sound like an entirely melodramatic phrase, but they say it because over time their freedom and ability to go about their business starts to be eroded. They are looking over their shoulders and increasingly become prisoners in their own lives. What is so worrying is that stalking can escalate to very serious violence, which underpins why we need to take action early.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Like the hon. Gentleman, I realised the extent of stalking when people brought cases to me. I was particularly struck when it involved an ex-partner and I saw how seriously the police took it. I had a case in which the person moved, and on the day she moved in, she received a card from her ex-partner. The police said, “Well, that’s just quite a nice thing to do.” Actually, it was clearly the ex-partner saying, “I know where you live.”
Alex Chalk
That is precisely it. The weight of that experience means that something that might be perceived to be innocuous in isolation becomes a deeply upsetting episode. I shall deal with that in a little more detail in due course.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman might not know this, but I always sit in front of the memorial to my parliamentary neighbour Jo Cox. As the whole House knows, she was a victim of a type of stalking. I served on the anti-stalking commission, and that really opened my eyes to the misery of victims and the fact that very often they do not complain because they are terrified to do so.
Alex Chalk
That is absolutely right, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the rise of digital means of stalking has magnified the problem over the past decade or so. It used to be that the stalking might consist of the person turning up at someone’s home address and then doing that threatening but apparently innocuous act of driving past. Of course, people can now stalk others using multiple fake identities. I heard about an appalling case in which somebody had generated the identity of the victim’s dead partner—you could not make it up. They were seeking to harass, intimidate and upset that individual.
When I was working on this issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), it became clear to us that although society and this place had started to react to the issue by generating the offence of stalking, the penalties that existed for it were manifestly inadequate. The penalty at the time of only five years’ imprisonment was less than the maximum penalty for the theft of a Mars bar, which is seven years, and less than the maximum penalty for non-residential burglary—lock-up burglaries and so on—which is 10 years or so, yet stalking can genuinely ruin people’s lives. The sentence was insufficient.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is obviously a great expert on these matters and I do not want to divert him too much, but while probably all of us in this Chamber have been trolled—we have probably all been trolled repeatedly, with quite vicious language at times; it is a function of being in this place—hopefully most of us have not been stalked. Surely one thing we need to be clear on is the difference between the two. Presumably the lines will blur as cyber-crime grows and that sort of behaviour continues.
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend makes an acute point. We must always recognise that whenever we legislate in this place, there is always the potential for the law of unintended consequences to apply. One thing that the courts will have to consider is precisely what stalking means, and that is covered by the Bill. Notwithstanding the possible pitfalls, there is no doubt that there was a gaping hole that needed to be filled. We in this country have moved much faster than most to seek to fill that gap.
I do not want to spend too much time looking into the history, but it is important to spend a moment putting the measures into context. The maximum penalty was five years’ imprisonment. When the judge came to sentence my constituent’s stalker at Gloucester Crown court, he said, “I simply don’t have the powers required to do justice in this case.” We know that if the maximum sentence is five years, which is of course 60 months, and the defendant pleads guilty—very often the evidence is so overwhelming that that is the only sensible approach for them—that takes it down to 40 months. They then serve half, and indeed they may even be released on a tag before the halfway point, so in reality the maximum penalty is around 18 months’ imprisonment. For a GP who has been stalked for seven years, driven to post-traumatic stress disorder and advised to come off the General Medical Council register, and who cannot begin to rebuild their life until they know that the person is in custody and they themselves are safe, 18 or 20 months is manifestly inadequate. I was therefore grateful to colleagues from all parties who came together to change the law and protect victims.
Kevin Foster
It is worth noting the work that my hon. Friend did with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) to produce a report that provided compelling evidence for why the House should change the law. It is appropriate that that is put on the record. Perhaps my hon. Friend may wish to reflect on the impact of that work.
Alex Chalk
It is very kind of my hon. Friend to say that. Our work has had an impact, but none of that would have been possible—as I say to Dr Aston and, indeed, as I say to the family of Hollie Gazzard, who was very sadly killed by a former partner in Gloucester—or achievable in this place without people being brave enough to support the campaign. When I sat down with Ellie, I said, “Are you prepared to put your name to this and to try to change things?”, because I was always concerned that it could reheat old traumas, but to her great credit that was precisely what she agreed to do.
Let me turn to the Bill. Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for the work she has done. With characteristic clarity, she has identified the importance of early intervention. The reality of this behaviour is first that it escalates, and secondly that it can become ingrained very quickly. For both those reasons, it is important to intervene, because the nature of this kind of offending is such that—and this is not a criticism of the police at all—the police intervene only after it has escalated and the behaviour has become ingrained.
Just imagine the circumstances in the example of my constituent. A GP says to the police, “I’m a bit concerned because I’ve had five letters from my patient.” The police officer says, “Well, it seems a bit odd, but probably no crime has been committed.” She then says, “Actually, it has now escalated, because he’s turned up at my home address. He didn’t say anything violent, but he didn’t have any particularly good reason to be there.” The police officer says, “Yes, well, that also sounds a bit odd, but it probably doesn’t cross the threshold for actually arresting or prosecuting someone.” One can imagine the drip, drip over time, and we are suddenly one, two, or three months down the line. Meanwhile, that behaviour and that fixation has become truly entrenched.
Luciana Berger
I thank the hon. Gentleman for very kindly giving way again. It is worth putting on the record one of the key points of this Bill that we have not yet discussed this morning: we know already that there are too many people across our country who have to bring forward civil action at their own cost in order to contend with this challenge, which can take years of some people’s lives. The real purpose of the Bill, and the essence of what we are discussing today, is to ensure that that does not have to happen and that we empower victims and give them the support that they rightly deserve and need.
Alex Chalk
That is absolutely right. We spend a lot of time in this House passing legislation, and we collectively tend to pat ourselves on the back and say, “Well, look, brilliant, we’ve done it.” But unless legislation can be enforced, it becomes a dead letter. That is conversations that we have in this place in respect of all sorts of things ranging from the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to the Equality Act 2010 and so on. The concern here is that unless people can get ready access to these sorts of protections then they are, as I say, a dead letter. The point that the hon. Lady makes about injunctions is an extremely good one. How many people want to issue a writ in the county court, or indeed in the High Court, at significant personal cost? Litigation of any type is an uncertain option, and—this is the critical point—what would be the remedy in the event that that injunction is breached? What we need is a swift and muscular—if I may use that expression—approach in order to be able to intervene early. It also has to be fair. That is the point that I will come to after I have taken this one intervention, and then I will make a bit more progress.
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman absolutely puts his finger on it. I will develop that point in a moment. One thing that I have experienced in my time in practice, particularly in relation to this kind of offence, is that the approach and the attitude of the officer in the case is absolutely crucial. If an officer understands precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, which is that individual instances are not necessarily picked up and allows them to slide, then it can become a problem. On the other hand, if a police officer, because he has been properly trained or is particularly engaged in the case, is excellent at collating that evidence and material to build that picture, that can have a dramatically different impact, first, on the way the victim feels about it, and, secondly, on the remedy that they are likely to get.
I want to develop this other point. One thing that we have not dealt with in this piece of legislation, and that we need to go on to, is to look at the role of technology in all this. What do I mean? An individual victim will always be better and more effective at recording the litany of instances than the bureaucracy of the police. That is not a criticism of the police, but a statement, I would imagine, of the blindingly obvious. What we need to do is to put into the power of individuals the right, in appropriate circumstances, to record and list episodes as they take place. We might say, “Well, hang on, why don’t you just do that on a sheet of paper?” No, what we should be doing is potentially looking at an app, so that when the police, for example, authorise an app and say that they are going to open an investigation, the complainant or victim can, when there is an incident, record it on this app—what happened, the time that it took place and any photographs that go with it—and that can then be reviewed and assessed by police officers in due course. Otherwise, the danger is that if a person has to go down to a local police station every time their stalker walks past their house, it is terribly bureaucratic and inefficient.
I do not want to go down a rabbit hole, but there is an important role in ensuring that victims are best able to record and collate what, ultimately, will make the difference to an effective prosecution in due course. It becomes 10 times more powerful if the individual can say, “I remember that, at that precise moment, he walked past my house, or he knocked on the door, or he put the letter through my door, or he terrified my children and I will record it at that precise moment, and this is the evidence that I have collated.” That is powerful evidence and we should be helping to facilitate that.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very persuasive speech. Of course, what will be required is for the police to prioritise their resources to police this new offence. What that will also mean is that they may have to deprioritise other areas, or receive additional resources. I understand that an extra £410,000 is being allocated. Does he think that that will be enough to deliver the measures that he rightly talks about this morning?
Alex Chalk
It is an extremely important point, and it does build on the point that I was making just now. There is no doubt that if this is not handled correctly—if it is not arranged correctly—there is a danger that it becomes more onerous than it needs to be. The example that I want to develop is the one on which I have just briefly touched. Principally, the old analogue techniques are that if somebody is robbed in the street, the police officer will say, “You are making a complaint, I understand that. Please come to the police station on a certain date and we will sit down and prepare a statement. You, the complainant, will make the allegation of what happened to you in the street. I, the police officer, will write it down. It will be in longhand, running to various sides of paper. You will then sign each page and so on.” That process could easily take an hour and a half. It then gets logged onto a system and so on.
That might be perfectly appropriate where the allegation relates to an incident that took five minutes in, say, a high street, but where the allegation relates to a cumulative total of ongoing events, innocuous in isolation but insidious in combination—to coin a phrase—we need to have a more digital approach. That is why I invite the Home Office to consider digital techniques to allow the police to work as effectively—and to take up my hon. Friend’s point—and efficiently as possible, otherwise there is, of course, the danger of resources being mopped up. The only point that I would say on this resource issue is that there can be few more compelling priorities in circumstances where the evidence suggests, compellingly, that if we do not address this behaviour early it can have very serious consequences. In other words, this is a worthy candidate, I respectfully suggest, for the prioritisation to which my hon. Friend refers.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, and this is a very good Bill. May I just come back to a point that he made earlier? I know that he had extensive legal experience at the Bar before coming here, so can he confirm his view that there is no adequate provision in existing law for this sort of thing to be brought forward by a victim or by the police—for example a restraining order—and that this effectively fills a gap that currently exists?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is true to say that there are measures that could be imposed to say to a would-be defendant, “Don’t do this.” The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) talked about injunctions. It is true that there could be bail conditions further down the line, or indeed restraining orders. What this Bill does is provide for much earlier intervention. That is the critical point. It would mean that a chief police officer, under clause 1(1), could apply to the magistrates court for an order in respect of the defendant if it appears that the defendant has carried out acts associated with stalking and so on and so forth. I respectfully completely agree with the points that were made about the amendments. The reason why it is important is that a person then gets a hearing before the court in short order and it is a judicial process.
By the way, this is the other point that we need to be crystal clear about: just because we think that these allegations are serious, and just because we know that they can lead to very harmful consequences, it does not mean that we should jettison a proper judicial process. People should be made subject to these orders only if evidence is called—cogent, compelling and admissible evidence—to ensure that individuals are properly subject to these orders. We should make no mistake about this: they are deliberately onerous and deliberately restrictive, because they are designed to protect the individual, but also, and importantly, they are designed to provide the courts with the tools they need to seek that early intervention and rehabilitation of the complainant. I am pleased to note also that duration of orders comes under clause 3, which provides that the stalking protection order has effect until a further order. In other words, if things have changed, and if as we all, I am sure, hope get to the point where an individual defendant finds themselves rehabilitated, they can come back to the court and apply to have the order discharged if that would be the appropriate thing to do.
The point that was made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) is about providing a new tool in the armoury. The reason why it is in the armoury, so to speak, is that there are serious consequences in the event that someone breaches it. Clause 8, which covers the offence of breaching a stalking protection order, provides a power of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, a fine or both.
Kevin Foster
I am finding my hon. Friend’s speech both interesting and persuasive. Does he agree that we must be very clear that these powers are in addition to the powers that the police and the courts already have, and that they should in no way be seen as an alternative? If someone has committed an offence under existing legislation with the penalties that it carries, then that should be used? This measure should be viewed as a way of protecting someone in addition to those powers, and not as a replacement in any way?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this is in addition.
Many victims have told me that by the time a perpetrator can be convicted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, when the court says, “Yes, an offence has been committed, the defendant has been convicted and we will now impose a restraining order,” they want to say, “Well, thank you very much, but the damage has been done,” because the concerns are in place and the behaviour is entrenched. Therefore, although one would not wish for one moment to remove that power—it remains an important tool for the courts—this provision fills that gap earlier in the process.
I have spoken for far too long, Mr Speaker. [Hon. Members: “No, no!”] Hon. Members are very kind. In conclusion, we as a society have come an awfully long way on this issue, and we have done so as quickly as any other peer nation. It has been a process, and we are now close to, if not completing that process, getting to the point where these tools are available to the authorities. Ultimately, however, what will make the difference, whether in the criminal justice system or in any other part of public life, is the individuals who actually use these powers.
I wish to pay tribute to Gloucestershire Constabulary, whose police officers have put so much effort into this cause. They are leaders in their field. They have seized the baton and run with it, because they recognise the implications for people in our county—Hollie Gazzard is an obvious example, and Ellie Aston is another. Ultimately, it will be the officer who receives the complaint from the victim who, through their compassionate and organised response—I say “organised” because it is about collating so much data—will make the difference in whether justice is done. I think that that conscientious, professional officer will now have the tools that he or she needs to keep victims safe. On that basis, I am delighted to support the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Foster
I must say that it makes a pleasant change to be called to speak so early in the debate, because usually I have the joy of almost having to sum up, particularly on a Friday. It is a pleasure to speak to the amendments tabled by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). It was a joy to serve on the Public Bill Committee for this important legislation, which will provide protection for many victims of stalking.
This debate is timely, given the experiences of Devon and Cornwall’s police and crime commissioner, who we have learnt has been a victim of domestic violence and stalking offences. Of course, the Bill relates more to victims who have not been in a relationship with the perpetrator, but it is very welcome that she has spoken out, and hopefully her experience will inspire other victims of stalking to realise that they need not stay silent.
Turning to amendment 1, I think that it makes eminent sense to be clear that the Bill applies to virtually every police force operating in England and Wales, and not just to the geographical police forces. The inclusion of the British Transport Police makes sense, given the obvious potential for stalking offences on public transport. For example, a stalker could follow their victim on to the train they take to work each day. Trains coming into London can be particularly crowded, and the four minutes to 4 train from Exeter to Paignton can be exceptionally crowded. That could give stalkers an opportunity to be in close physical contact with their victim. Normally that is just considered part of commuting. We have all experienced the joy of taking the tube at about 20 minutes to 9 in the morning, when the trains are packed. It is a chance to get very close to our fellow passengers, although not by choice. The inclusion of the British Transport Police is therefore welcome.
I should be clear that I support the amendments. I note that amendment 6 lists the police forces involved. That brings me to a query about whether the Civil Nuclear Constabulary ought to be included—the Minister might like to reflect on this—considering that these provisions could apply in instances where there has not been an intimate relationship. For example, someone working at a nuclear establishment could be stalked purely on the basis of their views on nuclear power generation. The same could be true for those who protect sites such as Sellafield. Or would that be an encumbrance in the legislation? That is more of a query, rather than something I think should necessarily be amended immediately.
I note that the Ministry of Defence police are included. I should explain, for the benefit of those following our proceedings—I always think that it is important to help people understand this point—that they are different from the military police or the naval provosts, who enforce military law against service personnel. The Ministry of Defence police are very visible in Plymouth, where I grew up, because of their role in enforcing the law at Her Majesty’s naval base Devonport and the submarine refit complex. They are police officers who work with the military; they are not the military police. It is important to be clear about their role.
The Civil Nuclear Constabulary operates as a fully armed constabulary, given the nature of its officers’ work and the sites they protect, and particularly given the threat of terrorism. Again, should they be included in the Bill? I see the Minister dutifully noting down these queries, so I am sure that we will have a full response when the time comes. We should consider whether these would be useful additions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes touched on when I intervened earlier. Of course, although we in this House will complete our consideration of the Bill today, it is still to go through the other place, where this matter might be considered further.
It makes eminent sense to tidy up provisions for when someone might need to give notification and how they are to do so. The Bill needs to be robust and we must not create any loopholes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) explained in his excellent speech, because many of those engaging in this kind of behaviour not only ruthlessly work out how to intimidate their victims and gain power over them, but research the law in an effort to stay just this side of committing a criminal offence. My hon. Friend described the impact on his constituents, which was welcome, because this is not some dry debate about legal orders that prevent people from doing something; it is about real victims.
Mr Sheerman
Do we not sometimes lose sight of the overall context? In this country today, deep into the 21st century, we have a tremendous problem with violence against women. There is not just stalking; there are gangs up and down our country—gangs of men of Pakistani origin prey on young girls and even children—and domestic violence. There is a real problem in our country with violence of all kinds against women. This Bill is part of the fight to roll that back.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right to highlight that there is a real issue. It is not just physical violence; it can be verbal violence. It is about someone trying to gain power over someone and have them under their control, whether through direct violence, intimidation or other actions, such as constant emailing or the sending of cards, as we have heard. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham made the point that sending a Christmas card might seem innocuous, but it must be seen in the context of the overall behaviour. It can be about the perpetrator being constantly in the victim’s life.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned violence against women. I am a supporter of the white ribbon campaign in my constituency, and I hope he is doing the same—I am sure he is—in his own constituency. This is about men standing up and saying that other men’s violence against women is unacceptable. I have a close relative who experienced a violent relationship for a significant period. She was physically abused—in one case, she was hospitalised by the attack launched against her—but what sticks is the constant name calling and running down. One of the points she used to make was that if someone who did not know them had observed what was going on and then asked what her name was, they would have been given not her name but two swear words put together. I do not need to repeat such language in the Chamber; Members can work out for themselves what sort of language I am referring to. She felt that that was how she would be known.
There was constant denigration and running down, and then when trying to move away from the relationship, there were constant phone calls and texts. Bluntly, it was only when BT’s choose to refuse service became available that a lot of that could finally be brought to an end through blocking the numbers. I wonder whether, if something like the Bill had been available, it might have helped to build confidence in tackling those situations.
It is right that we have clear penalties. We have been clear that this is an additional way of protecting potential victims of stalking, not about replacing existing legislation. For me, this is not just about those who have been in relationships. As I touched on in my comments about the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, such actions may in effect be stalking but are due to other reasons, such as political reasons.
Yesterday, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) and the hon. Members for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), I had a very interesting visit to the Community Security Trust, which works with the Jewish community, and heard about the experiences of some of the people there. The reason for someone in effect stalking or harassing in such cases is based on their faith. Again, it would be interesting to hear what the Minister thinks about someone engaging in the completely unacceptable behaviour of targeting people for that reason, but doing so in a way that looks very much like stalking. She is an eminent lawyer in her own right—a learned Member—and I am sure she will outline how some of these powers might be of assistance.
Huw Merriman
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree with me—I make this point not specifically to my own Front Benchers but about successive Governments—that although Parliament is very good at creating new laws, if money, resources and guidance are not provided, the authorities responsible for enforcing those laws cannot deliver on that, which calls the laws into question in the first place? I found that as a district councillor under the previous Labour Government and I am afraid it is happening again. I absolutely support this Bill, but there is a wider point. When Parliament passes a new law, should there be a money resolution not for the Bill to be carried forward but to make sure that it can be enforced and delivered on the ground? Otherwise, we are, I am afraid, misleading people.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for a very thought-provoking intervention. Just to be clear on the technicalities, the Bill does of course have a money resolution, because the Government have agreed to one.
Huw Merriman
Obviously, there is a money resolution to carry through the Bill, but I am talking about an ongoing money resolution, as it were, to make sure that the police have the resources to deliver it.
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend is right. There clearly needs to be an intention not just to pass a piece of legislation—it makes us sound very virtuous, and we can pop our speeches on to our websites when we get back to the office—but to ensure it has a real and clear effect. I am sure that the Minister, who I see has already made some notes, will talk about how the Home Office will seek to work with police forces to make sure this power is used and brought into effect.
I have one slight disappointment. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) was due to talk this morning on his amendment 7, which is about when the Bill will be brought into force. Again, when we move on to Third Reading—I hope the Bill will be given a Third Reading later today—it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts about when she intends to bring it into force. We do not just want to pass the Bill and then leave it sitting on the statute book, but to bring it into force.
Chris Philp
On the question raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill a few moments ago—[Hon. Members: “And Battle.”] Let us not forget Battle. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) asked about funding. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government intend to increase funding to combat violence against women by £100 million between now and 2020? That may go some way to addressing the concern that our hon. Friend has raised.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for yet another very well thought through and incisive intervention. I am obviously encouraged to hear that news, as I am sure Members from across the House will be. We probably should be clear that this law is gender-blind—the victim of stalking could be male or female. I remember a case in Coventry, where a male vicar was targeted by a female stalker. I absolutely welcome the funding, which is a sign of the intention to tackle a problem from which, sadly, too many women suffer. When a relationship is breaking down, or even when it is still going, it can go from love and affection to aggression, control and domination.
Kevin Foster
I will give way very briefly. I am conscious of the time, and I know that you, Mr Speaker, do not want to listen to too much of me today.
Huw Merriman
My hon. Friend should give himself more credit. This comes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). The Government of course focus resources on certain policy areas. I absolutely agree. They have spent £802 billion—that is what this Government do and they do it well—but when we state that we are spending this amount on a generic area, and that it is not ring-fenced to a particular offence or new legislation, people are somewhat left short. I am thinking of the free bus passes that the previous Government brought in. I was a district councillor, and we found that they were not funded at all, and the district councils took the rap.
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend—I visited the Battle part of my hon. Friend’s constituency, at his invitation, earlier this year—makes a valid point. When I was deputy leader of Coventry City Council, the funding for free swimming passes was distributed. Bizarrely, some councils with swimming pools struggled with the amount of funding they received, yet one council received the funding even though it did not have a swimming pool. One council got the bill and another got the funding, so it was a bizarre situation.
To return to the Bill, I know that the Minister, who is in her place on the Front Bench, will be keen to reply to us to confirm how we see it being taken forward, implemented and explained in guidance. We should not get drawn into the amount of additional resource because this is also partly about the police officer who is looking for legal options to deal with a case and a victim. The Bill gives them that option. In many cases, that can be done with existing resources. It is about assisting officers in dealing with a situation that may otherwise escalate into a worse one—with a much more serious crime being committed, necessitating even more police resources—or one where they have to let it run, because at the moment the law does not quite kick in. The Bill gives officers an opportunity to make an application. I am certainly satisfied that the protection of requiring the application to be made to a court means that there will be a fair process, and this cannot just be used arbitrarily. As Members will have noticed, there is also provision for an interim order, pending a full application, if the court feels that is appropriate.
I would not necessarily say that this should be codified in an amendment, but it might have been helpful if my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch had spoken to his amendment to allow us to discuss the exact time the measure will be brought in. However, we certainly want to reflect on the fact that we need not just to pass legislation, but to provide an element of funding to ensure that it becomes of real help on the ground.
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes make eminent sense. They will strengthen the Bill and introduce additional tweaks to those measures introduced in Committee, and they will make the Bill even more robust as—hopefully—we send it in the not-too-distant future for scrutiny by their lordships. The Bill will be welcomed. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments and that we will not be forced to spend time on Divisions that could otherwise be spent on Third Reading. I congratulate again my hon. Friend on the progress of the Bill so far.
James Cartlidge
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). He said that the House probably did not want to hear more, but he does himself a disservice. I was certainly left wanting more, and I look forward to hearing him speak on other matters, possibly later today. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for introducing this important Bill. As a child I remember being a great fan of the Sherlock Holmes series with Jeremy Brett, and the episode that scared me the most was “The Solitary Cyclist”—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
indicated assent.
James Cartlidge
The Minister clearly shares that recollection. As a child I found the concept of a lone female on a bicycle being followed at distance by someone else on a bicycle absolutely terrifying. That was a drama, and without giving a spoiler to anyone who does not know the story, the gentleman was not quite as nefarious as perhaps the lady had feared at the start, but in summarising the sense of fear produced by stalking, that story left an indelible mark.
I wish to refer to a specific constituency case regarding this Bill, but I will keep it for Third Reading when I hope to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, because it is more a point of principle. It is a matter that I have previously discussed with the Minister, and I think it may well be raised in another place, perhaps by Lord Deben or the newly ennobled Lord Garnier. The point is incredibly important to me personally and to my constituency, so I shall keep it for Third Reading.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay I welcome amendment 1 on the Ministry of Defence police and the British Transport police, and I shall focus my remarks on that. South Suffolk contains the village of Wattisham. Strictly speaking the Wattisham Army airbase is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), but many service people reside in my constituency. They live either on the base or in the nearby town of Hadleigh.
To underline the importance of that base, at the Remembrance Sunday service in Hadleigh the entire regiment and town come out, and we have a fly-past by Apache helicopters. I do not know what the probability is or what the statistics are on stalking occurring in those residential homes, either within the base or for service personnel who live in towns, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay that there is every reason to extend these powers to those officers because stalking could occur. Stalking is not confined to any part of society—it embraces all of society, including my constituents, and it affects men and women as both victims and perpetrators.
The British Transport police are often undervalued, but they perform a fantastic job protecting the transport network. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay referred to being on the tube at twenty to nine in the morning, and being uncomfortably and involuntarily close to people and their armpits—[Interruption.] I am sure you have experienced it too, Mr Speaker, and that is the nature of the tube at busy times. It can be quite unpleasant, but we grin and bear it so to speak. The point is that someone could be on that tube following, pursuing or stalking someone. I do not necessarily understand exactly when the order could be placed, and whether it would be done by the normal constabulary in respect of the person being stalked and their home address, or whether the British Transport police would have specific responsibility for doing that. I will leave that to finer legal minds than mine, but the logic of extending those powers seems straightforward, and I am happy to support the amendment.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
I want to build on my hon. Friend’s powerful point by saying that, in my community, public transport is essentially how everybody gets around. People often travel on the overland or underground late at night, and this is a crucial amendment to a crucial Bill that I very much support. I am pleased that my hon. Friend supports the Bill, and I add my support to his.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Although most of her constituents use public transport, things are slightly different in rural constituencies where there is more dependency on the car, which leads on to a point about police resources.
Kevin Foster
I am very much enjoying my hon. Friend’s detailed remarks and his usual analysis of the Bill. Does he agree that involving the British Transport police—or, for example, the Metropolitan police—means that either/or, or even both could apply to the court? That is the approach they should adopt, rather than waiting to agree or thinking that the other force will act. Each force has the ability to apply once the evidence is there. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging information sharing between the forces so that we do not have half the evidence required with the British Transport police, and half with the Metropolitan police, without the two being put together?
James Cartlidge
That is a good point, and the fact that I am unable strictly to comment on it underlines why politicians should probably not have a role in frontline policing matters. We do, however, have responsibility for making the law and resourcing the police, and I want to focus on that point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) made a good point about public transport. We have public transport in South Suffolk—indeed, many of my constituents wish we had more buses and so on, and there is one train station—but in rural constituencies people overwhelmingly rely on cars. This is an issue of police resources. On many occasions I have been happy to defend the Government’s position of enabling police and crime commissioners to decide whether to raise the precept to fund the police, but if we pass laws that may result in more being asked of the police, we must ensure that they have the resources to carry out those tasks.
Putting aside the money coming from the precept, we feel concerned that the funding formula penalises Suffolk. Norfolk is a very similar county in many ways—of course, it is not quite as good in some respects—and it receives about £1 million more per year than Suffolk for no obvious reason, and significantly more per head, which is even more indefensible. I very much welcome the funding to deal with violence against women, but will it be distributed to forces under the current formula, and how will that be determined? Stalking is a terrible crime that we all oppose—that is why we are here to support the Bill. If it is that serious a crime, and if the police are to be given more resource to deal with it, how will that resource be distributed and where will it come from?
I support the amendment but I have a caveat about resourcing. As the Minister will be aware—perhaps the note from the officials is on this point; I hope it is—on funding we must take rurality into account, and not just in terms of reliance on the car. I submitted a written question to the Home Office to ask whether it has considered the difference in cost between rural and urban policing, and it responded that no such study has been undertaken.
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the impact of rurality. Does he agree that in that context it is even more important to consider technological solutions, so that individuals are able to record and report allegations that relate to stalking or other offences, without necessarily having to make long journeys to local police stations to make a statement? Only by properly harnessing technology can the police truly build effective prosecutions that lead to justice.
James Cartlidge
I talked earlier about my lack of expertise in police matters, but of course my hon. Friend has considerable expertise on criminal law matters. I am sure he is correct about the role of technology.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and in particular my hon. Friend for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who speaks with great knowledge of these issues. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on introducing this very important Bill.
I would like to speak briefly to a few amendments. There is complete agreement among Members that stalking is an abhorrent behaviour that can have terrifying consequences for its victims. It can cause significant psychological damage and worse. Sadly, I have heard from constituents who have been victims of stalking just how it can take over their lives, not only when the stalking is happening but for years afterwards. It is therefore very important that we take action.
The House heard during our previous consideration of the Bill how the powers currently available to the police to intervene in stalking cases are insufficient. The responses to the Government’s consultation demonstrated that “stranger stalking” in particular is a form of crime that is not adequately addressed by existing laws. The passing of the Bill will send a very clear message to victims and perpetrators alike that stalking in all its forms is despicable, will not be tolerated and will have serious consequences.
Thanks to the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, the Bill has cross-party support, as well as the backing of the Government, so there are very few amendments for me to address at this stage. However, I would like to talk about a few. I welcome the broadening of the Bill’s scope that amendments 1, 2 and 6 would bring. We all recognise that there is a gap in the existing protective order regime, particularly in terms of provisions for early intervention in stalking cases or addressing emerging patterns of behaviour. Under the current regime, it is difficult to take any action in cases in which the criminal threshold has not yet been met, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham articulated, in which the stalking occurs outside a domestic abuse context, or in which the perpetrator has not been intimately linked with the victim previously.
One of the Bill’s most important benefits is the fact that it transfers the onus to take action away from the victim, giving other bodies—the police and the courts—the additional tools they need to intervene in stalking cases at an early stage. The amendments will ensure that access to the new tools created by the Bill is not limited solely to local police forces in England and Wales, but given to the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police and the chief constable of the British Transport police. It can only benefit the victims of stalking if we ensure that those other branches of our police forces are able to act on their behalf.
The technical changes made by amendments 3 to 5 put in place important safeguards that should reduce the likelihood that perpetrators of stalking could evade the Bill’s provisions. As colleagues will be aware, the Bill creates a new civil stalking protection order that will enable the imposition of both prohibitions and requirements on individuals who are deemed to be perpetrators of stalking. One of those requirements, introduced by clauses 9 and 10, is that any person subject to a stalking protection order would have to give their name and address to the police by attending the local police station and also notify the police if their address changes. There was, however, a lack of clarity in the Bill about when persons subject to an order would have to notify the police of any changes to their registered details. Amendments 3 and 4 provide important clarification by requiring individuals to give notice of their intention to change their name or address, rather than being able to inform the police after the fact.
Under the Bill as originally drafted, there was a danger that perpetrators with no fixed address could evade the requirement to register their details with the police. Amendment 5 addresses that directly by explicitly catering for the possibility that a perpetrator may not have a home address. All the amendments are eminently sensible and receive my support. I support the Bill and I look forward to speaking on Third Reading.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
It is a pleasure and privilege to speak on Report. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on promoting such an important Bill. I steered a private Member’s Bill through this place in my first year as a Member, so I know the many demands that can suddenly appear in the inbox and arrive down the telephone line the moment one is drawn in the ballot, as there are any number of competing calls from non-governmental organisations and campaign groups. I can think of very few issues that are more worthy to pursue than the one that my hon. Friend has chosen.
It was a particular privilege to serve on the Bill Committee with my hon. Friend and to hear some of the examples from Members on both sides of the House. The core purpose of the Bill is to fill gaps in existing legislation and to ensure that our laws keep up with the changing pattern of stalking offences and developments in our understanding of them. It is a testament to the skill with which my hon. Friend has steered the Bill that it received overwhelming support from both sides of the House and that our proceedings in Committee were so straightforward. There was strong support for both the principle and the detail. She has rightly continued to work to ensure that every t is crossed and every i is dotted so that the Bill can fulfil its potential.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) in speaking very briefly to the amendments, which will make this very good Bill even better. I think that most Members will welcome amendments 1, 2 and 6 as common-sense clarifications. We would expect most applications for protection orders to involve police forces that cover geographical areas in England and Wales, but it would clearly be undesirable to allow specific cases to fall between the gaps purely because the jurisdiction they occurred under was covered by the British Transport police or the military police. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) suggested, the Civil Nuclear constabulary would be a sensible addition to those bodies, should the opportunity arise at a later stage of the Bill’s passage. Those three amendments clarify that the orders are not confined purely to what we might think of as police forces, but cover all parts of our police service.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire pointed out, when one of the core provisions of the orders is notification requirements, it is very important that those notification requirements are sensible and comprehensive. It would be frankly absurd to preclude people covered by the orders from being able to notify the appropriate authorities before they changed their name or address, but the Bill as originally drafted could easily have been interpreted as saying that the sole period within which people could make notifications was during the three days immediately after the changes came into effect. In tabling her amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes has provided clarification and brought forward what most Members would see as common-sense provisions. Similarly, there is further clarification on people without a home address—particularly those of no fixed abode—and clearly, it would not fit the purpose of the Bill if orders could not apply to people in such circumstances.
I think that this is an extremely important and welcome Bill, and the amendments will make it even better. I hope to catch your eye on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak about the Bill more generally.
Victoria Atkins
May I say what a pleasure it is to support the Bill and these amendments today? The whole House thanks my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for her incredibly hard work on the Bill, helped by her members of staff. This has been a shining example of the House of Commons at its best: we have cross-party agreement; we know the direction of travel and the destination we want to get to; and we have had constructive criticism, questions and so on to help us to improve the Bill. In that spirit, I thank all Members who have contributed on Report.
If I may, I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s comments about Lady Astor being the first female MP. I have the pleasure of representing a seat for which the second female MP stood—we always remember the firsts for landmark events, but we tend not to remember the second. Margaret Wintringham represented the seat of Louth in 1921. She was the first ever British-born female MP—the second ever female MP—and she took a slightly different approach to campaigning than I or any of my colleagues, because she took a vow of silence during the campaign, which might commend itself to some of us in future.
In that spirit, I welcome these modest refinements to the Bill. Amendments 1, 2 and 6 will expand the list of chief officers who will be able to apply for the orders to the Ministry of Defence police and the British Transport police—we have heard from colleagues about the benefits that this could have—and they will be able to initiate related proceedings in connection with the variation and renewal of an order.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for her detailed response and agree with her proposed approach. As I said, the reason why I raised the point was that the Ministry of Defence police focuses fundamentally on securing a base, but may react to incidents on the periphery of the base. It is about the police being part of the process, but I welcome her proposal.
Victoria Atkins
Indeed, and I note that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) raised a more general point about service personnel. The Bill already covers acts of stalking by forces personnel against civilians, and stalking offences apply to service personnel automatically by virtue of the Armed Forces Act 2006. However, I will look into the points that he raised.
Stalking occurs across a range of contexts with devastating consequences. It is therefore essential that the orders are available to different police forces, and I am delighted that the amendments will help us to achieve that. While I am speaking to clause 1, and I have notified my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes about this—who knows, it may be that my legal skills are causing me to examine the text too carefully—I want to commit to clarifying the terminology in the clause, which moves between “defendant” and “person”. I want to make it absolutely clear for the police, those who litigate on their behalf and magistrates how the Bill should be navigated, so I will provide clarity on the use of terminology in the other place.
Before I move on to amendments 3 and 4, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) for his speech. I will be more loquacious about his contribution to this issue on Third Reading, but I note his point about the police updating their processes to include, for example, the use of apps to help to record instances of stalking. I will explore that with the police, because it seems to be a very valid point.
I am grateful for the observations from my hon. Friends the Members for South Suffolk and for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on police resourcing. We make an economic impact assessment of the effects of any Bill, so one has of course been conducted for this Bill. I heard what they said about the police settlement, which they will both know is coming forward in December. We have managed this year to provide a further £460 million for policing, with the help of police and crime commissioners, but it is very important that we listen regarding any further support that can be given in pressing the case for dealing with the challenges of changing crime in the 21st century. The full economic impact is a reason why we have not placed a commencement date in the Bill. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, and I will deal with that at the end of my speech.
Amendments 3 and 4 will modify the notification requirements on a person subject to a stalking protection order. I am pleased that they have the approval of the House. Under the requirements as drafted, a perpetrator must notify the police of a change of name or address within three days of that change taking place. It enables the perpetrator to give such notice before the change takes effect. Amendment 5 caters for circumstances in which the subject of a stalking protection order does not have a home address, and mirrors the notification requirements relating to registered sex offenders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay examined the issue of commencement dates. We propose to deal with that through regulations, and he will know that that is the usual way of enacting provisions in any Bill that receives Royal Assent. We have gone for the traditional or usual way of commencement because we are mindful that if the orders are to be used as effectively as all colleagues wish, there will be implications for the courts, legal aid, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Prison Service and the National Probation Service, as well as the police who will require training and who will make the applications. We want to allow a little time for that to bed in, and guidance will be issued as part of that.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for the details that she is providing on commencement. Would she provide a rough timeline for the benefit of those following our proceedings? It makes eminent sense to give those organisations time to prepare, but I assume that we are talking about a matter of months, not years.
Victoria Atkins
Most certainly. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot give precise dates, but it is certainly months. We want to get this on the statute book, and put it in force as soon as possible. We have a date for consideration in the other place early in the new year, and we want the measure to be put into force as soon as possible. May I thank all hon. Members, including my hon. Friends, for their contributions to this stage of scrutiny, and commend the amendments to the House?
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 4
Variations, renewals and discharges
Amendment made: 2, page 3, line 24, leave out from “police” to the end of line 27 and insert “who applied for the stalking protection order and (if different) the chief officer of police for the area in which the defendant resides, if that area is in England or Wales.”— (Dr Wollaston.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 1.
Clause 9
Notification requirements
Amendments made: 3, page 6, line 2, leave out “within” and insert “before the end of” .
This amendment would ensure a person can give notice that they are going to use a new name before doing so.
4, page 6, line 8, leave out “within” and insert “before the end of” —(Dr Wollaston.)
This amendment would ensure a person can give notice that they are going to change their home address before doing so
Clause 10
Method of notification and related matters
Amendment made: 5, page 6, line 30, leave out “whose home address is not” and insert “who does not have a home address” .—(Dr Wollaston.)
This amendment would cater for the possibility that a person might not have a home address
Clause 14
Interpretation
Amendment made: 6, page 8, line 9, at end insert—
““chief officer of police” means—
(a) the chief constable of a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996 (police forces in England and Wales outside London);
(b) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;
(c) the Commissioner of Police for the City of London;
(d) the chief constable of the British Transport Police;
(e) the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;” —(Dr Wollaston.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 1.
Third Reading
Dr Wollaston
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
May I begin by thanking the Minister and all her officials for the extraordinary amount of work that they have put into assisting with the Bill, and for everything that the Minister has done to progress the violence against women and girls agenda in the House? I also thank Daragh Quinn in my team for his work and for doing so much to co-ordinate and help with the preparation of the Bill. I also thank the many individuals and organisations outside the House that have made such a difference. I am thinking of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Paladin, the Gloucestershire Stalking Advisory Service, the National Stalking Consortium and many others, such as police and crime commissioners for Sussex, for Northumbria, and for Devon and Cornwall, as well as officers from Thames Valley police and Devon and Cornwall constabulary, I thank them for their valuable advice, and I also thank the stalking lead for the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
I would particularly like to pay tribute to colleagues and Members across the House for their work. Having listened to the characteristically thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), I pay tribute to the work that he has done, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), on stalking, which has made an extraordinary difference.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being extremely gracious. I thank her for introducing the Bill, which undoubtedly will be of benefit to my constituents in Aldershot and Farnborough. We are very grateful.
Dr Wollaston
I thank everyone who has contributed today with thoughtful speeches and interventions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), my neighbour, whom I join in his tribute to the police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall for her courage in talking about her experience. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), and for Dudley South (Mike Wood), for their thoughtful interventions. I thank the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for their ongoing and long-standing work. I greatly appreciate all the support I have received from colleagues across the House.
As we have heard, stalking is an insidious and dangerous crime with devastating consequences for victims and their families. Acts that initially appear, as we have heard, to be trivial, when seen as a whole have an extraordinary effect, not just on the individuals immediately affected but on everyone around them. Stalkers contact not just members of the family—my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham spoke about his constituent, Dr Aston—but people’s workmates and neighbours. There is a sense in which it never stops. As we heard from my hon. Friend, it is often described as murder in slow motion. It affects people’s physical and mental health, leaving them feeling isolated and fearful. It can escalate rapidly. In the context of domestic violence, about 50% of threats of violence are acted on, and there are many examples in which stalking has escalated to rape and murder.
Stalking behaviour is much more common than people realise. About one in five women and one in 10 men experience some kind of stalking behaviour in their adult lifetime, according to the crime survey for England and Wales. It typically takes about 100 episodes of stalking behaviour for victims to come forward. That is what the Bill is partly about. It is also about raising awareness and allowing this to be taken seriously. We hear time and again of people coming forward to report stalking behaviour, but it is dismissed as somehow a compliment.
James Cartlidge
I am impressed by what my hon. Friend is saying, as it shows the great passion that she has brought to the Bill. We would all agree that it adds huge value by protecting our constituents and bringing greater security and peace of mind to those who have suffered from this, knowing that others may be better protected in future.
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend.
Raising awareness will help to encourage more people to come forward. There has been some encouraging progress. In the 2017-18 crime survey for England and Wales, there were more than 10,000 recorded offences of stalking, almost double the previous number of 5,313. The increase is likely to be due to improvements in the recording of the crime, rather than an increase in stalking. That is an important point: laws in themselves will not protect victims. A key focus is to make sure that we have better recording so that victims are more confident about coming forward. That does not mean that every instance of unwanted attention will lead to prosecution for stalking—of course not.
Stalking is a type of harassment characterised by fixation and obsession. As hon. Members have said, the Bill will allow earlier intervention, rather than allowing that to become a deeply ingrained pattern of behaviour that carries on for decades. We heard that Emily Maitlis’s stalker pursued her for more than two decades and even, disgracefully, managed to continue his behaviour from prison. There is a possibility that, if we can intervene at an earlier stage, we can stop this behaviour in its tracks, and I think that that is an important aspect of the Bill.
I pay tribute to the courage of all the victims who have come forward and spoken out. I am not talking just about celebrities; as we have heard, stalking affects people in their everyday lives, and stalking patterns of behaviour sometimes follow relatively trivial encounters. I pay particular tribute to Alexis Bowater, from my own area, for her long-standing work and her campaign for changes and increased protections.
Luciana Berger
I, too, welcome the courage of the people who have been able to speak out, but we should recognise that hundreds, if not thousands, of people throughout the country are unable to do so. I have heard victim impact statements read out in court from people who have not been able to come forward because the stalker’s behaviour has had such a negative impact that it has affected their mental and physical health, and their ability to conduct their daily lives. That has impeded them from speaking out, although they may have wanted to.
Dr Wollaston
That is an extremely important point. There is, of course, another group who cannot speak out: those who have lost their lives at the hands of stalkers. Some of the most moving testimonies that I heard when I was preparing the Bill have come from families who have been bereaved by stalking. I am thinking in particular of the family of Alice Ruggles. I pay tribute to all those people, and I am grateful to the Minister for meeting some of them at a roundtable. I think that we were both struck by their personal courage and bravery in trying to change a hideous experience into an attempt to protect others in the future, and I thank them all.
Another point that has been raised today concerns the growth of online stalking. There is nothing new about stalking, but, sadly, what is new is the increase in the number of avenues that are open to stalkers. That is one of the reasons the Bill does not strictly define stalking. This is a rapidly evolving, changing field, and it is important for us to retain some flexibility. The number of avenues that are open has increased even over the last few years, and if we defined stalking too tightly, we might restrict future opportunities to head off stalking behaviour. The Bill leaves the definition open, giving examples of the kinds of behaviour that could constitute stalking. As I have said before, the point about stalking is the fixated and obsessive nature of it, and the fact that it is a form of harassment. That needs to be recognised as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham made an important point when he said that an app should be considered. That would enable the full picture to be seen, and I hope that the Minister will consider adopting my hon. Friend’s welcome suggestion.
The Bill is important because it fills a significant gap in the law relating to those who are subject to so-called stranger stalking—that is, stalking by someone who is not a former, or indeed current, intimate partner. It is also important because it takes the onus away from the victim. It means that someone else can come forward to apply for a civil stalking protection order on the victim’s behalf, rather than the victim’s incurring a huge amount of expense and trauma in trying to establish protections on their own behalf. That is one of the key features of the Bill. Moreover, because this is a civil order, it can be imposed on the balance of probabilities—although, importantly, breaching it is a criminal offence. There are real penalties, which I think have been lacking in the past. Stalking is punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment. However, the protection order is not intended to replace a prosecution for stalking. When the criminal threshold has been met, we would expect the police and the whole criminal justice system to go down that route, but we know that a case can take time to build. The point about a stalking protection order is that it could be there while that case was being built for a full prosecution.
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is making a very important point, not least for this reason. A substantive and full prosecution could allow the court to consider the entirety of the conduct in its full context, to ensure that the punishment was truly fitting and appropriate. If the prosecution related purely to a breach of a stalking protection order, the courts might not have the powers that they required, because the offending itself would not be fully set out. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Dr Wollaston
Absolutely. Following the important work that my hon. Friend has himself undertaken, longer sentences are available following a full prosecution for stalking. However, as he will know, it takes time to build a case, and in the meantime the behaviour is allowed to continue.
Another feature of the stalking protection order is that it has both positive and negative requirements. It is a bespoke order, so it can allow the court to include a requirement to undergo a psychiatric assessment or, if necessary, to take part in a perpetrator programme. I hope that the Minister will look into perpetrator programmes, and what we can do to ensure that more of them are available where they could help.
The Bill also makes it possible to consider the full range of stalking behaviour in imposing prohibitions. For example, much more of such behaviour now encompasses online stalking. The orders would ensure that perpetrators not only registered their names and addresses, but registered all their names and addresses, and the aliases that they used. They could be required not to have encryption software on their computers, so that it could be demonstrated whether or not they were continuing to contact their victims using another means. If, for example, they did have encryption software, that in itself would constitute a breach of the order and a criminal offence. A bespoke order allows us to be flexible about all the different methods that perpetrators are currently using.
Some people may fear that we would use the orders in inappropriate circumstances. Others have suggested to me that a person who complains of being stalked may, in fact, turn out to be the stalker. That is why this must be a very careful process, and the orders must be demonstrated to be necessary to protect. They must pass that test. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham has already pointed out, there needs to be a very effective process for people to be able to come back and challenge the orders, and that, I think, is another important aspect of the Bill.
Overall, the Bill improves protection for victims against what is a really horrible crime, which is much more common than people realise. It fills a gap in the law for those who are victims of so-called stranger stalking, and I think that it has shown the House working at its best. Colleagues on both sides of the House have recognised the gap in the law and made constructive suggestions for improving it. I am grateful to everyone who has supported the Bill and helped it to make progress.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I would like to start by congratulating wholeheartedly the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who, with her characteristic diligence, perseverance and cross-party approach, has succeeded in uniting the House behind these important measures that will protect victims and save lives. I can think of few tasks more important to this House than keeping our constituents safe, and she has done all our constituents a huge service through this Bill.
We have heard the emotional and chilling testimonies of constituents who have brought their cases to their MPs. They show why this Bill is so important, and it will undoubtedly ensure better and earlier protection for victims of these terrible crimes.
Far too many stalking crimes go undetected. In 2015, there were just 194 convictions for stalking offences. Yet, the crime survey suggests that one in five women and one in 10 men will be affected by stalking in their lifetime, while the under-publicised national stalking helpline has responded to almost 14,000 calls since it was established in 2010. Clearly the conviction rate is barely the tip of the iceberg.
Providing the police with the vital additional tool of this Bill is important to protect victims, and, importantly, puts the onus and the priority on the police. The hon. Lady knows that we wholeheartedly support this Bill and will continue to do so as it makes its way through the other place.
However, as is clear from this debate, it will be important to continue to keep the measures under review and look at what more might be needed in future in order to build on this architecture to ensure long-term safety and protection for victims. There are simply too many gaps in the current legislation as it stands. With increased technology and globalisation it is important that legislation covers cyber-stalking and crimes carried out from other countries, and it is also important that measures extend to strangers.
Last year the House amended the law so that perpetrators of stalking may now receive much longer maximum sentences. We know that the way that victims are dealt with is simply not good enough, however. Charges are amended and dropped with no notice and victims can be cross-examined by their own tormentor in court. It is a matter of deep regret that the Government have failed to bring forward a victims law, as promised in successive manifestos. It would enshrine the rights of victims in law and create important new measures to support victims. If the Government chose to bring forward such a law, they would have the full support of Labour for the creation of an independent victims advocate, who would help the victim navigate their fundamental rights at a traumatic time, when the array of services and institutions they have to deal with can often be overwhelming and bewildering. The rights of victims often end up, almost unwittingly, falling by the wayside in this process.
The measures in this Bill are essential for early intervention, not just because prevention is always better than cure, but because even before arriving at sentencing, victims of stalking face additional hurdles in their treatment by the criminal justice system. It has been shocking to hear that victims experience on average 100 occurrences before coming forward to report the crime. As with all serious crime, the police and the entire criminal justice system need an integrated and informed approach if the issue is to be tackled effectively. Better detection and better treatment of victims must be their priorities. That has been very apparent in today’s debate.
This insidious form of harassment has been acknowledged and recognised only over the last few years, and the impact on, and implications for, victims and the difficulties they face in attempting to get the authorities to take them seriously has been described by several Members. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) made an excellent speech, in which he compellingly described this form of crime as “murder in slow motion”. He talked about how the victim’s freedom is constantly chipped away and horrendous psychological damage caused, and the feeling that the crime will not be taken seriously by the authorities. As constituents of mine have experienced, such crimes are sometimes taken seriously only once an actual violent crime has been committed.
Despite the obvious progress made since 2012, I have repeated conversations with the police about the difficulties they face in bringing successful prosecutions. As we know, access to the police and support for victims is at an all-time low, and there is serious concern that despite all the tools the police undoubtedly now have to tackle harmful crimes such as these and crimes of domestic violence and coercive control, they do not have the resources to devote to the kind of service necessary for the support of victims and for the required level of investigation to secure a successful prosecution. The numbers of these crimes are rising year on year while prosecution rates continue to fall.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) made the important point that, with such limited resources, it is inevitable that if the police are to focus on these crimes they will deprioritise other areas. He said that the Government have a duty to ensure that resources are continuously available to enforce the legislation that we bring forward in this place. The police are constantly frustrated that we reach for a legislative response in dealing with serious issues and crimes while not ensuring that they have the resources on the ground to get the job done.
That issue was raised by several other Members, too. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) raised the issues that Suffolk experiences because of the funding formula; next-door Norfolk, with very similar issues and priorities, receives significantly more funding. The issue of the pensions gap was also raised, and the £165 million of further cuts for 2019-20, which is forcing police and crime commissioners to use their precept to plug the gap. The hon. Gentleman rightly said it was indefensible to ask local people to pay more in rates to plug a gap for the Treasury when that money should only be spent in the local area on local policing priorities.
Indeed, an unusually high number of Conservative Members have raised the issue of resources today and the fact that the police simply do not have the resources that need to be devoted to investigations in order to secure prosecutions for these crimes. Despite the rise in serious crime, this Government have cut the number of police officers by over 21,000 and continue to make cuts, with below-inflation budget rises even given the precept flexibility—and now there is the £165 million pension gap. Those cuts have consequences, and they are having consequences in every community in our country.
When our officers face this much pressure, it leads to the downgrading of crimes; that has been reported on a number of times over the last four or five years. To add to that, officers have not been sufficiently trained to tackle stalking crimes. That decreases the chance of prosecution even with new legislation. Police forces need the specialist resources required to address crimes such as stalking which touch on and concern violence against women in particular.
The measures in this Bill are vital but not sufficient. I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes again and all who have supported the Bill’s safe passage through the House, particularly the Minister and her officials. It is a privilege to support this Bill and I wish it speedy passage through its remaining stages.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for introducing this important Bill, and for her assiduous work in bringing it forward. I also thank Opposition Members, including the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for contributing powerful arguments this morning and situating this Bill and this change in the context of a wider agenda to prevent violence against women. Today we are taking an important step to protect victims of stalking, but it will not, of course, be the final step.
One reason why I am keen to speak in this debate is that I have constituents who have been the victims of stalking: the family of Alice Ruggles, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes has mentioned. Alice was murdered in 2016 by Trimaan Dhillon, who has now been sentenced to life imprisonment. Alice’s story is a perfect example of so many of the problems that my hon. Friend’s Bill seeks to solve. Alice had twice told police that Trimaan Dhillon was harassing her. He was given a police information notice, but that did not stop his obsessive behaviour. Later, it emerged that police had previously given Dhillon a restraining order for harassing another ex-girlfriend. Alice’s family have established the Alice Ruggles Trust to make the case for changes to protect future victims of stalking, and I pay tribute to them for their incredible courage.
I am therefore very pleased to support this Bill today. It will fill a clear gap in the protective order regime and protect people like Alice in the future. It will enable effective action to be taken against stalkers whose actions are not yet provably over the criminal threshold. As my hon. Friend set out, the instrument being created today is highly flexible and will enable us to cover all the different new types of stalking behaviour. At present too many people who pose a real threat to life are simply being repeatedly cautioned and given PINs, or action is simply not taken against them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes pointed to the fact that there has been a huge increase in the registration of stalking cases, and that is welcome. It suggests that the police are now taking this more seriously. I hope that creating this new tool for the police in the form of the stalking protection order will help to solve the problem. The sanctions that it will create will help to stop stalkers whose behaviour is escalating, and the prohibitions it creates will help victims to live without fear. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) made a powerful speech in which he talked about “murder in slow motion”, and about the fact that cases can go on for years and years.
This is a hugely important new instrument, and I hope that, as well as providing these direct benefits, its introduction will be a catalyst for the police to improve their handling of stalking cases more generally. A report published last year by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service found that people who had suffered repeated harassment or stalking were frequently being let down by under-recording, by inconsistent services and by a lack of understanding in the criminal justice system.
In one of the most powerful parts of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, he described why these cases are so hard to tackle, and how something that can start off seeming slightly unsettling can shade off into something more sinister and then become more and more worrying. At what point do the police, who are busy all the time, take action? That is why this is such an important piece of legislation, and I hope that it will trigger police forces to review how they handle stalking and to start following the best practice guidance set out by the charity Paladin. This is a hugely important piece of legislation. It is not the end of the story, by any stretch of the imagination, but the flexibility the Bill creates will allow stalking protection orders to be useful in a wide variety of circumstances. It will improve lives and I hope that it will save lives. I support it in the strongest possible way.
Chris Philp
It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien). Let me join other hon. and right hon. Members in extending my warm congratulations and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who has conceived the Bill and steered it so expertly through the various stages of the legislative process. She does the whole country a great service in the work that she has done, and I am sure that all Members across the House are grateful to her for her hard work and for the expertise and dexterity that she has brought to bear in bringing this legislation almost to its final stage.
Luciana Berger
I was not going to make my own contribution today, but I should like to echo what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the cross-party spirit in which the Bill has been brought forward. It is also no mean feat to get a private Member’s Bill passed. We all know colleagues on both sides of the House who have secured their place through the ballot and presented a Bill to the House but who have not secured cross-party or Government support. I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on the fact that we are here today supporting this Bill, and I look forward to its making progress and being passed.
Chris Philp
I strongly agree with the hon. Lady’s comments. The House of Commons is at its best when we come together and find cross-party consensus on these issues. This is often evident only on a Friday when private Members’ Bills such as this are being debated. Perhaps it would be better if we could find similar common ground on other days of the week. Who knows, maybe we will do so in due course.
My hon. Friend’s Bill fills a lacuna in the current legislative framework. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) laid this out with his characteristic forensic attention to detail during his speech on Report a short while ago. He made it clear, very powerfully, that the tools available are not adequate to deal with this particular category of emerging stalking that we are addressing today. For example, the measure of taking out an injunction in the civil court is extremely complicated and expensive, so it is unreasonable to expect a victim of stalking to have to take out their own injunction in the county court or the High Court. Restraining orders generally follow conviction, or at the very least they follow court proceedings, so that occurs only when the problem has become so serious that the threshold of criminality has clearly been crossed and, generally speaking, adjudicated on by a criminal court. Bail conditions only follow arrest. So the measures of restraining orders and bail conditions cannot be used at an early stage in the pattern of offending. That is why the measure that we are debating today is so welcome; it gives victims protection at a very early stage in the process of the offending behaviour.
In the consultation that the Government ran on this legislation, 69% of respondents felt that the current legislative arrangements were inadequate and that something more was required. There is no question but that these stalking protection orders will fill the gap identified by those respondents. The gap is powerfully illustrated by a conviction that was handed down yesterday by the Crown Court in Hove in Sussex. The defendant who was convicted was in fact a resident of my borough, Croydon, and unusually it was a female defendant. Most defendants in these cases are male. This defendant, Lina Tantash, aged 44, is a resident of Croydon and she was jailed yesterday for four years for stalking offences that had carried on over a period of 10 years. The conviction applied to three of those years. She had persistently harassed and stalked the victim by turning up unexpectedly at his place of work—even turning up at his office Christmas party—by making thousands of phone calls and by offering money to his colleagues to provide his personal mobile phone number. Eventually, the victim had to leave the country.
This was a serious pattern of behaviour that took place over many years. When the sentence was handed down yesterday, it was accompanied by a restraining order to prevent any repeat of the offence, but by then it was far too late. Had this legislation been in place some years ago, it would have been open to the victim to go to the police and ask them to seek a stalking protection order. That would have prevented the offending from getting to that serious stage and it would probably have prevented the need for a criminal conviction. It would have protected the victim, but in a sense it would also have protected the perpetrator, because they would never have reached the point of facing a four-year prison sentence. This legislation would have benefited both the victim and the stalker, because it would have prevented the stalker from ending up with a criminal conviction. One of the most powerful elements of this proposal is that it can prevent the offending from escalating in a way that is damaging to everyone.
Mr Sheerman
I have listened attentively to what the hon. Gentleman has said about that specific case. I served on the original stalking commission. Stalking is wrong, and it is women who are affected in a huge proportion of cases. Does he not think that this country should have some sort of universal Bill of Rights for women to be free of violence? We need to guarantee that women can be free from the fear of violence, whatever their ethnicity and whatever part of the country they come from.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that the vast majority of victims of these terrible crimes are women. He is also right say that we should ensure that women from all backgrounds are protected. He made reference to a Bill of Rights that was gender-specific, but I believe that rights are universal and that they should be enjoyed by people regardless of their gender or race. However, his objective—that women should be completely protected—is one that I wholeheartedly agree with.
Mr Sheerman
I made a speech in Westminster Hall in 2009 about what I knew to be going on in the gangs working across our cities who were preying on women and on children in care. At that time, the police were saying to me, “Well, guv, it’s difficult. It’s expensive. And in their culture, certain things are acceptable.” No violence against women is acceptable in my book.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There can be no excuses, based on cultural background or anything else, for the mistreatment of women in any way, whether that is stalking, forced marriage or female genital mutilation. All those things, and others, are abhorrent. No woman of any age or of any ethnic background should experience them, and categorically cultural background is no excuse; it does not make it okay.
Chris Philp
Members on both sides of the House— and I hear agreement coming from the Government Front Bench—should all make it clear that it is totally unacceptable. There can be no excuses, and there can be no tolerance for these kinds of offences on any grounds at all. I am at one with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the prevalence of these offences. Indeed, there were 1,000 reported cases of stalking in London in 2017, and there may, of course, be many more that were not reported. There were a further 12,000 cases of harassment. This clearly is a wide-scale problem, and the police need to focus on it.
I am pleased to hear that the Metropolitan police—I am a London MP, so I pay particular attention to the Met—have recently set up a stalking unit, but that unit has only eight officers. Clearly, if there are 1,000 stalking offences being reported, eight officers strikes me as quite a small number. I encourage the Metropolitan police to consider increasing the size of its stalking unit, bearing in mind the scale of the problem.
This is an excellent and welcome Bill. Its provisions should in no way deter the police or the Crown Prosecution Service from pursuing prosecutions where they find evidence of criminal behaviour. This does not replace criminal sanctions; it is an additional tool that should be used at a very early stage in the pattern of behaviour.
Clause 12 provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidelines suggesting to the police how and when these powers might be exercised. It is important that the police are proactive in this area and that, when a victim comes to the police, they respond energetically and proactively. Those guidelines are important to making sure that police forces across the country actually use these powers. This worries me sometimes. We pass legislation in this Chamber on all kinds of topics, but legislation is impotent and ineffective unless it is used and implemented by the public bodies it empowers. In this example, it is critical that the police actually use this legislation when they are approached by victims, and the House should keep a close eye on it to make sure that, once this legislation becomes active, it is used by police forces across the country.
Mr Sheerman
A chief constable told a group of us only two weeks ago that the Crown Prosecution Service is very restricted in resources at the moment in taking cases forward. That was the police saying, “We can’t get the action because the CPS is in that position.” The budgetary concerns are broader than just the police.
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting that concern on record. As we go through the comprehensive spending review next year, laying out departmental spending limits for the four or five years to come, it will be a good opportunity for Members on both sides of the House to make submissions to the Treasury on such issues to make sure that the resources are in place to enable the CPS and the police to prosecute people, as appropriate.
My last observation, in passing, is that I notice there is no formal definition of stalking in the Bill or in the interpretations at the end. When stalking is referred to, it is with a lower-case s. Stalking does not seem to be formally defined. I consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, who drew my attention to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which lists some examples of stalking behaviour, but again it does not provide a precise definition. I wonder whether at some point, in future legislation, it might be worth our creating a more formal definition of what constitutes stalking to help police forces and the CPS in their work.
This is an excellent Bill and, again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes on her fantastic work, her legislative dexterity and her perseverance in getting this Bill to Third Reading. The Bill fills an important gap in our current legislative framework. I am delighted to give it my enthusiastic and vocal support and, if necessary, to support it in the Lobby.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on bringing this important Bill to this advanced stage. My only disappointment is that, in its current form, it does not apply to Scotland.
In Scotland stalking is covered under the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, section 39 of which includes some of the measures we discussed this morning. Section 39 specifically mentions conduct, especially the different kinds and modern forms of stalking. The conduct defined in that Act includes: following someone; contacting or attempting to contact them by any means; publishing material relating to, purporting to relate to or purporting to originate from them; monitoring their use of electronic communication; entering premises; loitering in any place; interfering with their property; watching or spying on them; or acting in another way that a reasonable person would expect to cause the victim to experience or suffer fear or alarm.
The 2010 Act has no provision for a stalking protection order, which my hon. Friend seeks to introduce today. If the Bill is successful, we can work with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to make sure there is equality of law and equality of the protection of rights across the United Kingdom.
This truly is a British problem. In 2017-18 there were 1,376 reported cases of stalking in Scotland, up from 495 in 2011-12—a 170% increase in the incidence of stalking. I know from the personal experience of constituents coming to my office that geography is no hindrance to such crimes, and it is important that, across the United Kingdom, our citizens have the same rights and protections.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke on Report about the British Transport police—an issue that has been a bone of contention back home and has been debated here and elsewhere. It is particularly important that these powers include the British Transport police, because these crimes have no respect for geography. He accurately highlighted that busy commuter trains and other forms of transport are where individuals can be at the greatest risk, especially in this day and age when a mobile phone can be used to take a picture or a video of someone sitting on a train, reading a paper in a tube carriage or doing anything else on public transport. That is another realm of risk, and many years ago, or even in the 2010 Act, we would not have appreciated the current extent of that risk. Including the British Transport police and making sure we have a co-ordinated and joined-up approach across the United Kingdom are both important.
Many Members have spoken today about their experiences as Members of Parliament, and about the experiences of their constituents. A number of constituents have approached me with varying degrees of relationship and other issues, and whether they go to the civil courts or cross over to the criminal courts, it is important that such personal and individual matters are given the right expression and protection in this place.
Individuals can be affected in incredibly negative ways when what originally seems to be innocent following turns a lot more malicious. It is important to make sure that the protections are there for these individuals, which is why I started my speech by talking about the different forms of conduct. It is important that we consider the breadth of conduct.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who talked about a definition of stalking. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) has just raised that matter again. The real problem sometimes is that what seems innocuous to most people preys on the mind of the person who is being stalked, so a little thing that we may think is nothing actually has a huge impact. That is one of the problems of defining stalking.
Luke Graham
I thank my hon. Friend, who makes, as always, a very wise contribution that is very welcome. As I was saying, it is important that we protect these individual rights and make sure that, no matter how seemingly innocent these actions are, people have the right protection so that the experience is right for them because it is about their own fear of harm and harassment.
I welcome the provisions to extend this to the British Transport Police and to make sure that the protections for individuals are there. I hope that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is successful with the Bill, she will work with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament as well to make sure that we have equal rights across our United Kingdom.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham). Although this Bill does not apply to Scotland, it is great to see representation for Scotland in the debate—and eloquent representation it was, too.
It is a pleasure to join other Members in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). Sometimes, I feel, we do not agree on other subjects, so it is excellent to be able to contribute to a debate in which we are perfectly aligned, the alignment being not just on our side of the Chamber but on both sides.
We have heard some excellent legal minds give their insightful view on this Bill, so I want to adopt a slightly different approach and use the latitude that is sometimes afforded to us on Fridays to give a public information broadcast. First, anybody who is at risk of stalking, experiences stalking or has family members who are being stalked should contact the national stalking helpline on 0808 802 0300. That line is run by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. The interesting thing about it is that it is a freephone number from landlines, but it also free from a number of mobile service providers. Also, the number will not show up on someone’s phone bill if they are phoning from a BT line, which might be important for some people who are concerned about stalking and do not want information to be shown on their telephone bill.
The Suzy Lamplugh Trust is a great source of information on stalking. Let us just briefly remember why the trust was set up. Suzy Lamplugh was 25 years old in 1986 when she disappeared, and her parents, Paul and Diana, set up the trust to provide incredible support to people who are victims of the type of terrible tragedy that they have experienced and to others who are victims of stalking. The trust receives money from the tampon tax fund, from which the Government contribute approximately £15 million a year, using money taken from VAT on sanitary products to support organisations that provide support for disadvantaged women. The trust is one of a number of organisations that that supports. It is a fantastic charity. Suzy Lamplugh was very tragically in the news most recently because police excavated the site of John Cannan’s mother’s house to try to finally find evidence to attribute the crime to him.
The trust is not the only charity that provides support in this field. In preparation for this debate, I also came across the Hollie Gazzard Trust. Last night, I tried to download the Hollie Guard app, which I thought I might be able to utilise to offer some feedback to the House on its efficacy or otherwise. Unfortunately, it is necessary to register to use the app and I am still awaiting notification that I can be registered as a user. However, I believe that it provides a valuable tool. If someone is walking home and feels that they might be vulnerable, the app enables them to register their start and final destination. It will track their progress and, if they do not arrive at that destination within a prescribed time, it can alert people they have predetermined from the contacts in their phone. It can also turn the phone into an alarm so that it gives out a high-pitched noise and the torch comes on as well to attract attention.
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing the research and finding out about that. I know Nick and Mandy Gazzard, the parents of Hollie Gazzard, and they will be absolutely thrilled to hear that he has, first, researched it, and secondly, accurately identified precisely what it does. Good for him—I am very grateful.
Eddie Hughes
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I would like to further endorse the work of Nick Gazzard. In December last year, West Midlands police operated a Facebook page where people could type in comments if they had concerns about stalking, and Nick was responding to those comments with Detective Inspector Jenny Bean from West Midlands police. He is doing incredibly valuable work and supporting people, following the terribly tragic circumstances of his daughter’s death in February 2014. The joint report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the CPS inspectorate identified 112 stalking cases that were not dealt with correctly, and in 60% of cases a risk assessment was not prepared. Clearly there is some work to do, but it certainly sounds as though West Midlands police are doing their best to make sure that they address this.
I would also like to mention Black Country Women’s Aid, which set up a stalking support service in January this year, also funded by the tampon tax fund. I thank Lorraine Garratley for her support and the information that she has provided me with in preparing for this debate. The group provides support for women and young girls over the age of 13 to help them through this difficult experience.
Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. I completely endorse this Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
I, like every Member in this House today, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for bringing forward this Bill. I pay tribute to the work done by the Ministers, officials and many people across both sides of the House in making sure that this happens. I look forward to voting in favour of the Bill in a short while.
As I said on Report, stalking is an abhorrent behaviour, and its victims often suffer devastating consequences that should not be underestimated. It has widespread ramifications for the victim. It not only severely impacts their mental state but can affect their careers, their relationships, and so many other things. The relentless nature of stalking, often over a period of many years, can leave the victims feeling absolutely helpless. This is exacerbated by the high threshold that must be met under the current regime for police to be able to intervene. There are many improvements in this Bill that will change things substantially.
Stalking is commonly misunderstood. Reporting unsolicited advances or a bombardment of messages can seem trivial if not considered as part of an overall pattern of harassing behaviour. Some victims have said that they were made to feel as though they were overreacting, or even wasting valuable police time, when trying to report their experiences. As one constituent of mine said about their own experiences of being stalked: “No one considers me seriously. There is no emergency but I am living with things that I simply should not have to live with.”
We should also remember that stalking can be a gateway to other criminal behaviour and often escalates, sometimes to the point of rape and murder. I welcome the fact that this Bill makes it clear that, where the police are empowered to apply for a stalking protection order on the basis that it is necessary to protect a person from risk, this risk can be of either physical or psychological harm. The risk element is key. Much progress has been made on the reporting of stalking offences over the past few years, but much more needs to be done. Although the number of recorded stalking offences has trebled in England and Wales since 2014, prosecution rates have significantly declined. It is clear that there is a gap in the law and the powers available to the police are not sufficient to tackle stalking in its various forms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, an astonishing one in five women and one in 10 men have experienced stalking behaviour in their lives, and this Bill will help police effectively to address the huge volume of cases that have not become criminal but are nevertheless emotionally traumatic for the victim.
Bob Stewart
Does my hon. Friend have any idea why there has been a trebling in the amount of stalking in England and Wales?
Nigel Huddleston
I suspect that there is a problem between the stalking and the reporting of it and, in some ways, a higher level of reporting is a good thing because it means that more people are coming forward with their concerns. I do not think we will ever be able to get a fully accurate record because there will always be situations and circumstances where some people, for whatever reason, do not wish to report.
Nigel Huddleston
Yes, but the more willingness to report there is, the better.
Mr Sheerman
Three or four years ago, the stalking commission looked at this issue. Anonymity and social media are very much at the heart of this, as there is this wicked ability for people to insinuate themselves into someone else’s life anonymously through social media. The people who run social media have a lot to answer for.
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point, and I certainly hope that the online harms White Paper, which will be coming out before the end of winter, will address some of these issues, too. I understand that the White Paper is being produced jointly by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office, and I am sure this will be much debated again. The social media companies have a lot of power and a lot of responsibilities, but they have to take those responsibilities seriously.
I spoke earlier about the dangers of stranger stalking and I will not repeat those comments now. I just want to say in conclusion that this Bill sends a clear message that stalking is a crime that the Government take seriously and that all of us in Parliament take seriously. It has a devastating impact on people’s lives, and I fully support all the measures in the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on successfully steering this important Bill through the House. May I also take this moment to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham), both of whom have done so much work over the past few years to ensure that those who are convicted of the terrible offence of stalking meet the justice they deserve? My thanks also go to Conservative colleagues, and to colleagues from across the House, many of whom speak to me quietly behind the scenes about cases that concern them and that their constituents have suffered. Those Members know who they are, and I thank each and every one of them for their help.
Stalking is a terrible crime that still affects literally millions of people and often makes their lives a misery. The title of last year’s inspection report, “Living in fear”, sums up well what it feels to be as a victim of stalking. I am proud of the actions that this Government and their predecessors have taken to reduce that fear, from the original Protection from Harassment Act 1997—we heard from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about the role he played in that—to introducing the specific stalking offences in 2012 and the funding we have given to the excellent national stalking helpline.
At this point, may I just thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) for his speech, which was public service broadcasting at its best? He made the important point that there is help available, albeit we sometimes need to search for it, and that is something that I have very much taken away with me. That helpline has helped almost 14,000 callers since 2010, as the shadow Minister said, and 94% of those callers say that they feel better about their situation immediately after making contact with that helpline. There is clearly a need, and the helpline is playing a huge role in helping victims.
Other projects are going on across the country to deliver innovative solutions to tackle this terrible crime. The Metropolitan Police Service, in partnership with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, has received more than £4 million from the police transformation fund for a multi-agency stalking interventions programme to share best practice and learning on developing interventions to tackle stalking. Northumbria has received more than £600,000 under the violence against women and girls service transformation fund for the Northumbria Building Capability project, which includes a specific project on cyber-stalking. Several projects to tackle stalking are funded through the tampon tax fund, including the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which has received money to scale up its casework support service for women who are being stalked. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North mentioned Black Country Women’s Aid, which has received more than £200,000 to pilot the first specialist support service for victims of stalking across the Black country area and to conduct research on stalking.
Mr Sheerman
The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), with whom I work on other campaigns, made a brilliant public service broadcast, but one thing he missed out was saying that when people are in trouble with stalking, MPs can help. MPs and our staff are very skilled at helping—we know about stuff—so please let us not underrate the job that MPs can do.
Victoria Atkins
I very much agree. Cross-party co-operation really can and must happen on such issues. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that Members of Parliament can do a great deal to help, and I thank him for his work on this topic.
A project called YOU Trust is another example of work to help to tackle stalking specifically. It provides a victim support service to women who experience stalking, risk assessing all cases and delivering solutions appropriate to that risk. We are working closely with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and other partners to raise awareness of stalking and to ensure that appropriate guidance and training are in place. Colleagues have been right to express concerns about the initial response of some police forces—although not all, by any means. It is right that we focus on the training offered to the police and ensure that their conduct is examined in inspections. That is why the findings of last year’s joint inspection report are so important. They are being addressed through a national oversight group chaired by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the action includes revising the legal guidance on stalking and harassment and delivering updated mandatory training for prosecutors. [Interruption.] Sorry—would somebody like to intervene?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I do not think there was an intervention.
Mr Sheerman
May I apologise to the Minister? A very good friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), was just passing and said, “You’re the first man to wear a roll-neck sweater in the Chamber.” It was a terrible diversion from the Minister’s good speech.
Victoria Atkins
I do not know quite how to respond to that, so I shall move on quickly.
The 2017-18 performance data indicated that joint police and CPS work to take forward more prosecutions for stalking rather than harassment, when that is the right course, had a positive impact. I listened carefully to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who quite rightly made the point that stalking protection orders are in addition to the ability to prosecute, not instead of it. He asked about putting a definition of stalking into the Bill or the underlying 1997 Act. As he rightly said, there is a checklist of behaviours in that Act, but we are conscious that types of stalking behaviour can change. Indeed, in 1997, when that Act was passed, cyber-stalking was unheard of—it simply did not happen. Sadly, time has shown that nowadays it can and does happen. I hope that the list of examples helps not only my hon. Friend but practitioners on the ground to understand what can fall into the category of stalking behaviour.
I acknowledge the observations of my hon. Friends the Members for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who both referred to the breadth of practices in stalking behaviour. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay mentioned specifically conduct against people’s political and religious beliefs, which was of course a very valid point.
At this point, may I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who is no longer in the Chamber? I look forward to joining her on Monday in this place for a day of commemoration and solidarity against those who continue to behave disgracefully towards Jewish people and to give support to the Jewish community.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I just want to put it on record that there is cross-party support for this excellent Bill. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on introducing it.
The Minister mentioned behaviour. Surely one thing that we should be looking at is educating people about the behaviour that leads to stalking. Does she have any thoughts about what can be done to educate people to stop them stalking in the first place?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Again, I am happy to acknowledge the work, co-operation and collaboration on the Bill of Members across the House, for which I thank them. There are a number of projects, some of which I have already referred to, including in London with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, to help to intervene with perpetrators as well as to support victims. I hope that one of the most exciting aspects of the Bill is the potential for positive as well as negative requirements under the orders, such as requiring the perpetrator to seek mental health treatment if that is appropriate. I hope that the orders will bring about innovative thinking that is very specific to the person against whom the order is applied to help them to tackle their behaviour so that they do not continue to offend.
We all acknowledge that there has been a gap in the system, as was revealed in the public consultation in 2016, particularly around how to bring security to victims in the early stages of so-called stranger stalking. Early intervention is always important when tackling crime, but it is fundamentally so in the case of stalking, when apparently innocuous behaviour can often escalate into something more sinister, as hon. Members have been very good at describing today. I am delighted that this Bill will plug that gap and provide additional security to victims.
These orders will be a vital tool that the police can use to protect victims and to control the behaviour of perpetrators. As has been noted, one of their greatest virtues is their flexibility, permitting positive and negative requirements that will help to stop perpetrators from behaving as they have been. Of course, the ultimate sanction is available through criminal sanctions should people breach the terms of these orders.
Stalking can have devastating effects for women and girls; indeed, it can for men and boys as well, but we know from the evidence that the vast majority of victims are female. This measure will, I hope, be passed by the House just two days before the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, which is on Sunday.
The Government are carrying out a whole raft of work on tackling violence against women and girls, not least by refreshing the VAWG strategy alongside introducing the draft Domestic Abuse Bill, which I hope to bring to this House before not too long.
I must finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for introducing the Bill, the officials who have advised me and who have worked so hard on the Bill, and hon. Members across the House for their help with the Bill, including those who served on the Bill Committee.
I finish by reflecting on the people whom this Bill seeks to protect: the victims of stalking and their families. My hon. Friends the Members for Totnes, for Harborough (Neil O'Brien), for Cheltenham and for Walsall North, as well as other Members, referred to families who have lost loved ones as a result of stalking. I have had the privilege of meeting Mr and Mrs Ruggles, Mr Gazzard and others during the passage of the Bill and through our work more generally on stalking and harassment in the Home Office. This Bill is for them. It is to protect their families, their friends, their work colleagues and so on, and it is about trying to ensure that the terrible, terrible cases of stalking that we have heard just a little about today do not happen in future, and that we keep the victims of stalking safe.
Dr Wollaston
I thank the Minister, her officials and Members on both sides of the House. This debate has shown Parliament at its best. I look forward to the Bill making progress in the other place, and I thank Baroness Bertin for taking it forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Parking (Code of Practice) Bill
Friday 23rd November 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 View all Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 Novemer 2018 - (23 Nov 2018)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I inform the House that the Scottish Parliament has approved a legislative consent resolution relating to the Bill, which is available in the Vote Office.
New Clause 1
Appeals against parking charges
‘(1) This section applies if the parking code contains guidance recommending that all parking appeals are dealt with by a single person who is independent of persons providing private parking facilities.
(2) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of enabling or facilitating persons to act in accordance with that guidance, enter into an agreement with any person who appears to the Secretary of State to be so independent for that person to deal with parking appeals.
(3) An agreement under this section may provide—
(a) for payments to be made by the Secretary of State in respect of dealing with parking appeals;
(b) for the person to have power to charge fees, payable by persons providing private parking facilities, for dealing with parking appeals;
(c) for the maximum amount of any fee chargeable by virtue of paragraph (b).
(4) A person authorised by an agreement under this section to deal with parking appeals may not authorise any other person to perform that function.
(5) In this section “parking appeals” means appeals against parking charges imposed by, or on behalf of, persons providing private parking facilities.’.—(Sir Greg Knight.)
The new clause provides that, if the parking code recommends that all appeals against parking charges are dealt with by a single independent person, the Secretary of State may enter into an agreement with such a person for that person to deal with appeals against parking charges.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “State” insert “within twelve months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
Amendment 8, page 1, line 3, after “must” insert “use his best endeavour to.”
Amendment 1, in clause 6, page 3, line 14, leave out from “may” to “functions” in line 20 and insert “—
(a) enter into an agreement with a public authority authorising the authority to perform any functions of the Secretary of State under sections1 to4 (other than the function of laying a code or alteration before Parliament);
(b) enter into an agreement with a person authorising that person to perform any”
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to delegate functions relating to the investigation of breaches of the parking code to bodies that are not public authorities.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 28, leave out “public authority which is” and insert “person”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, page 3, line 34, leave out “the final version of”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 4, page 3, line 35, at end insert “for approval”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, page 3, line 36, leave out “The” and insert “Once the Secretary of State has approved the code or alteration, the”
Amendments 3 to 5 make clear that, where the Secretary of State has delegated the function of preparing the parking code, the Secretary of State must approve the final version of the parking code (or any alteration to it) before it is laid before Parliament.
Amendment 6, in clause 7, page 4, line 3, at end insert—
“() where the Secretary of State has entered into an agreement with a person under section (Appeals against parking charges) (appeals against parking charges), the establishment and maintenance by the person of a service for dealing with parking appeals (within the meaning of that section).”
The effect of this amendment is that, where the Secretary of State enters into an agreement with a person for the person to deal with appeals against parking charges (see NC1), the costs of establishing and maintaining that parking appeals service may be defrayed out of the proceeds of the levy imposed on accredited parking associations.
Amendment 9, in clause 11, page 6, line 29, leave out from “force” to the end of line 30 and insert “two months after the day on which this Act is passed.”
Amendment 10, page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (3).
Sir Greg Knight
Following previous stages of our consideration of the Bill, and having received a number of representations, it is apparent to me that it can and should be strengthened further. One point of concern that has been raised, including by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), relates to the appeals services available to motorists. Currently, when a motorist receives a ticket, they must first go to the parking operator to challenge it. If the challenge is rejected, they may go on to an appeals service provided by whichever accredited trade association the parking operator is a member of. Parking on Private Land Appeals and the Independent Appeals Service are the appeals services of the British Parking Association and the International Parking Community respectively. However, POPLA does not operate in Scotland, so motorists who receive parking tickets from British Parking Association operators in Scotland are denied an independent appeals service entirely, which I do not think is right.
The Bill provides an opportunity to raise the standards of the private parking industry and create more consistency in the process. My amendments would expand that opportunity, providing the Secretary of State with the power to appoint a single appeals service for the whole industry, providing greater consistency for motorists in England, Scotland and Wales, as they would know exactly where to go when they want to appeal a private parking ticket.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
May I be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on piloting his Bill thus far? Many of our constituents who are caught up in these schemes are among the most vulnerable. Will he reassure my constituents who have been caught up in the past that in future they will be able to go through a much clearer and more straightforward process?
Sir Greg Knight
I am happy to give that assurance and to confirm that the appeals process will be free of charge.
The new clause and amendment 6 are the substantive amendments and would allow the Secretary of State to appoint a single appeals service for the private parking industry. They would also amend the proposed levy powers in order to use the levy to cover the costs of establishing and maintaining such an appeals service. Amendments 1 to 5, which also stand in my name, are largely technical and would amend the Bill to allow the Government flexibility to delegate their functions for investigating breaches of the code. They would also ensure that, where the Secretary of State has delegated the function of preparing the code of practice, they must still approve the final version of the parking code.
The current provisions mean that the Minister can delegate only to a public authority, but my amendments would allow the delegation of the investigatory function to private bodies. That would allow subject matter experts from private industry to conduct the function, thus offering a greater range of options and value for money. Lastly, my final amendments cover where the Secretary of State has delegated the code of practice, as I have said, but is still required to give final approval to it. I commend my new clause and amendments to the House.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I commend the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) for his Bill and for the very sensible amendments that he has brought before the House. I assure him that I am not going to speak at length. I rise at this stage just to congratulate him and to assure him that he has the full support of Her Majesty’s Opposition.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I address some remarks to the amendments in my name, particularly amendments 7 and 8 to clause 1? Like everybody else in the Chamber, I think this is a really good piece of legislation, but it is dependent on the good will of the Government to ensure that something actually happens.
Too often, we pass legislation in this House, and months or years later we find that nothing much has happened as far as the Government are concerned. I give as an example the primary legislation passed in this House to limit public sector exit payments to £95,000. That was contained in the Enterprise Act 2016. The Government have still not implemented that provision. Despite promises more than a year ago that they were about to bring forward regulations, they have not even fulfilled those promises. The most recent information I have is that there will be a write-round before Christmas, and then they may have a consultation on the regulations next year. When the Government say, “Yes, we’re definitely going to do something about this”, as they did when that law was passed, there is quite often a gap between what is said and the reality.
It is against that background that I am seeking, in amendments 7 and 8, to tighten up the requirements on the Government to bring forward the code of practice. Currently, all the Bill says is:
“The Secretary of State must prepare a code of practice containing guidance”.
However, he may not prepare that code of practice for many months or many years, and we should learn from past mistakes.
Sir Greg Knight
May I just say to my hon. Friend that so far, throughout this whole process, I have found the Government very helpful, with no sign of procrastination? Indeed, they have been very astute in already seeking views and starting the consultation process, with a working group looking at some of these aspects. I am certain his fears are unfounded.
Sir Christopher Chope
I hope that is so. One way of establishing that my right hon. Friend is right would be if the Government readily accept amendments 7 and 8. Doing so would reinforce the good will of the Government in ensuring that they will bring forward their parking code in good time.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
A time limit could be put into the legislation so that by such a time this should be done.
Sir Christopher Chope
That is exactly the purpose of my amendments.
Amendment 7 would insert, in the first line of clause 1, that the Secretary of State,
“within twelve months of the day on which this Act is passed”,
must prepare a code of practice. That is pretty clear in bringing in a time limit and a requirement. I hope the Minister will be able to give an undertaking that the Government will bring forward a code of practice within 12 months. Some people may be impatient and say that they want it sooner, but under the terms of the Bill the Government have to consult before producing a code of practice, so I think it is reasonable to allow a period for the code of practice to be drawn up and consulted on.
If that amendment goes too far and is too extreme for the Government, amendment 8 is a modification as it would mean that the Secretary of State must “use his best endeavour” to prepare a code of practice. I do not know whether the Minister will say that those words are a meaningless addition, or that they would impose too tight a legal requirement on the Secretary of State.
Michael Tomlinson
As always, my hon. Friend and neighbour considers these matters carefully, and I am listening carefully to his proposals. Given that the Bill’s sponsor has received reassurance on this point, surely the phrase “best endeavour” would be otiose, because the Government and the excellent Minister have said that these things will be brought forward. We simply do not need those words.
Sir Christopher Chope
My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point, and I have tabled the amendment as a fall-back position—[Interruption.] Not a backstop, no. The amendment is a fall-back in case the Government do not accept amendment 7.
Sir Greg Knight
May I say gently to my hon. Friend that if his amendments are accepted, they may cause some difficulty? If the Bill becomes law, the Government will need to go through a procurement process, which will take several months. The arbitrary time limit that he seeks to impose might mean that that procurement process could not properly take place.
Sir Christopher Chope
With the greatest respect, perhaps my right hon. Friend’s point is relevant to my other amendments that relate to the time the Act must be passed. I do not see how having to go through a procurement process will interfere with the code of practice, unless the Government propose to delegate the drawing up of that code to some consultant—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend says that the Government might want to do that. They might also feel the need to comply with the European Union procurement directive on this matter, but that is speculation.
My right hon. Friend has been, not obsessed, but very concerned about the abuse of private parking facilities for a long time, and this is a great opportunity to get legislation on the statute book and get something done. However, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have great trust in the Government, that even if the Minister does not obstruct the Bill and exercises good will, as we have seen with public sector exit payments, there can be a big gap with those good intentions. I think the whole House supported the idea of a £95,000 cap on exit payments, yet two and a half years later there is no sign of that coming into effect, and the latest projection is that it will be sometime next year.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On amendment 7, how will the Secretary of State be judged on the requirement to “use his best endeavour” to carry this out within 12 months?
Sir Christopher Chope
That very challenging question is not dissimilar to the questions that I asked the Government and Prime Minister about what enforcement mechanism there will be to ensure that “best endeavours” as referred to in the withdrawal agreement will be implemented. In answer to a parliamentary question from me, the Minister replied on 22 November:
“The reference to best endeavours in Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement is a legally binding commitment that requires the United Kingdom and the EU to conduct themselves so that the negotiations on the future relationship are meaningful. It prohibits inflexible or obstructive behaviour and obliges the parties to pay reasonable regard to the interests of the other party.”
So in answer to the hon. Gentleman, that is the precedent that would be established. If he thinks that that is full of clarity, then I am sure he will be eager to support my amendment.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Presumably, whether best endeavours have been followed in the Brexit negotiations is likely to capture slightly more media coverage than whether best endeavours have been used in the introduction of the civil car parking code of practice.
Sir Christopher Chope
With the greatest respect, I do not understand why my hon. Friend says that. According to the Government, “best endeavours” is a legal term, so why can we not incorporate it in the Bill in the same way that it has been proposed that it should be incorporated in the EU withdrawal legislation?
Kevin Brennan
My point is that in this instance best endeavours would always be in the eye of the beholder. The hon. Gentleman does not explain, in his amendments, how Ministers could be judged on whether they had used their best endeavours and what the consequences of any such judgment would be. Therefore, as an amendment—I know he is very careful about these sorts of things—it does not survive minimal scrutiny.
Sir Christopher Chope
In my submission, if an aggrieved member of the public felt that the Government had not been using their best endeavours to bring forward the code of practice and were thereby delaying the implementation of the will of Parliament, it would be open to that person to raise the matter by way of a judicial review, so there would be an enforcement mechanism.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Is this amendment not a licence to take power away from this House and put it into the courts? This House should be responsible for its own legislation. If there had been a failure of a dilatory nature from the Government, then my hon. Friend could no doubt call them to account in this House. However, ceding power to the courts to make a decision on whether best endeavours have been used seems to me to be a complete abdication of responsibility.
Sir Christopher Chope
What my hon. Friend says is interesting if one applies the analogy of best endeavours to what is being discussed in the context of article 184 of the EU withdrawal agreement. In answer to another parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) the Minister with responsibility for exiting the European Union stated:
“the primary remedy would be that the party in default would be obliged to return to the negotiating table and modify its position. In the event that there was further non-compliance, remedies may be imposed under the processes established by the withdrawal agreement.”
It may be that my amendment is just as weak as article 184 of the proposed EU withdrawal agreement seems to be.
Sir Christopher Chope
I see the hon. Gentleman is expressing his strong agreement.
Sir Greg Knight
I think my hon. Friend is seeing shadows on the wall where they do not exist. The Government have made it quite clear that they are very supportive of the Bill. If I give him an undertaking to harass the Minister and make his life a misery if I think he is dragging his feet, will my hon. Friend agree not to press his amendments?
Sir Christopher Chope
Is my right hon. Friend saying that he himself will undertake to harass the Minister? I am afraid that in the past my efforts at harassing the Government have proved manifestly unsuccessful. Of course, my right hon. Friend carries with him the distinction of being a former Deputy Chief Whip, so perhaps he has more influence than I have.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
My hon. Friend should not be so dismissive of his own impact. As he will know, I was a sponsor of the Middle Level Bill, which is now the Middle Level Act 2018. His dutiful use of the procedures of the House ensured that it was a changed Bill. We do not necessarily need this at the moment, because we can rely on him being a dutiful parliamentarian, scrutinising constantly and ensuring that the House holds the Government to account for implementing the law that is passed.
Sir Christopher Chope
Gosh, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am being flattered into submission. Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to say that the Government have also conceded on the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I tabled saying that we need more Fridays on which to consider private Members’ Bills. That amendment has been accepted by the Government, and I understand that they are going to put forward a motion for debate on Monday that incorporates it. I can accept—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is important that we stick to the amendments in front of us rather than what might be amendments elsewhere in future debates.
Sir Christopher Chope
I shall use my best endeavours to comply with your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I think that was a useful walk around amendments 7 and 8. Let me refer briefly to the other amendments in my name, which deal with when the Bill has to be enacted. At the moment, clause 11, on the commencement, extent and short title, says that “section 8” and
“any power to make regulations”
will come in
“on the day on which this Act is passed”.
However, the clause also states that the
“remaining provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.”
My amendment suggests that that should be two months after the day on which the Act is passed, again to ensure that the pressure is kept on the Government to bring the measures forward as quickly as possible. There is massive public demand for them, and I fear that if we do not tie the Government’s hands a bit more than the Bill does currently, we may have to rely, to a very great extent, on the muscle power of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire. I do not really think we want to have to do that, which is why I tabled the amendments. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on his commitment to ensuring that we have parity and fairness in private parking—it is matched only by his dexterity on the drum kit and his ability to keep time in the parliamentary rock band, MP4. This is a very fine Bill, and I will come to the code of practice on Third Reading, because it is really important that we get a better understanding of the Government’s intentions on the code of practice, which is a most important feature.
I support the right hon. Gentleman on new clause 1 and the subsequent amendment. It is very important to ensure that we get clarity on the appeals process. He is right that we are not covered by POPLA in Scotland. If a car parking operator is part of the independent parking community, we can appeal to the Independent Appeals Service, but that leaves a rather big gap in the opportunities in Scotland to appeal against some of these parking restrictions.
The right hon. Gentleman will know my interest in all this. The city of Perth is totally plagued by private parking companies, making life a misery for my constituents and the many people who come to visit that beautiful city. It is important that we get the Bill done and address this issue. On appeals, a member of staff who works in my office in Perth spends a good part of his day having to deal with complaints and assist people with appeals about the operation of parking companies in my constituency. Something has to be done. The procedure is that someone can appeal against private parking operators, but they are self-regulating. It is up to them whether they take it seriously and to make a ruling and a judgment if they think it is fair—if they think the appeal should be progressed—and then to make a response to the complainant. Clearly, that course of action is unsatisfactory.
This comes down to the British Parking Association’s set of regulations. It introduced POPLA in England and Wales several years ago, which, as I have said, does not cover Scotland. People can appeal to POPLA only if they have failed to secure a successful outcome in appealing to the private parking operator in the first place, and there is a £20 charge. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that the new independent appeals process that he outlines in the new clause will be free of charge. That is important, because I have seen some of these fines range to over £100—I think the top one I have seen, at the end of one of the very many threatening letters that are used by debt collection companies, was in the region of £140 to £160. The added cost of the appeal is another burden and feature that has to be endured by the hard-pressed motorist.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I think 50% of MP4—[Interruption]—sorry, 75% of them are in the Chamber. Perhaps they will give a rendition before the end of the debate. Can I check, whatever we agree, that the measure will apply in Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament will back it?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely; it is important that that happens. At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire mentioned that a legislative consent motion has been passed in the Scottish Parliament to ensure that this Bill covers Scotland and that those aspects that require this House to legislate on behalf of the Scottish Parliament are secure. Every part of the Bill applies to Scotland, so it will be national, which is important for many of the fine English visitors who come to my constituency and enjoy the delights of Perthshire. They will be protected if they park in my constituency, and will have the same rights of appeal and process as everyone else.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has set out very clearly the concerns in his constituency. He has been an MP slightly longer than I have, but is he shocked by the sheer amount of correspondence in his inbox and postbag on parking charges? The Bill gives us a chance, particularly in Scotland, where the appeals process is slightly more iffy, to achieve clarity and fairness for our constituents against many of those—as he rightly says—rogue independent parking operators.
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. It is not just my city of Perth—I understand that there are issues across Scotland, where we have particular difficulties. I will come on to rogue operators on Third Reading, as it is important that they are identified and sharp practice is outlined to the House. What has happened is clearly a problem, and the hon. Gentleman is right that we require these measures. That is why I am proud to sponsor the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, and it is really important that we get it through the House today. I am pleased that we are here to ensure that a thoroughly good Bill gets through the House.
Michael Tomlinson
As ever, the hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent and passionate defence of the Bill, which is excellent. A few moments ago, he mentioned the threatening letters that were sent. Does he agree that, like my constituents, his more robust constituents can shrug them off, but the more vulnerable are caught up, and for them the charges, when set out in detail, are more worrying and impactful if they end up having to pay them?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. I have seen examples of correspondence from debt collection agencies, and the increasingly aggressive and intimidating tone that is taken in subsequent letters. It gets to a stage where some of my constituents and visitors to my constituency feel that they may be taken out and shot at dawn because they tried to park a car in a parking space. I wish to return to this, because the Minister will probably have hopeful things to say about debt collection. I understand that that is one of the areas he is looking at, and I hope to secure good news from him on Third Reading about how that will be incorporated in the code of practice so that we can end the more intimidating features of debt collection agencies.
I do not want to say anything else other than to totally support the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire in what he is trying to achieve in his amendments. May I tell the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is engaged in a conversation with his Whip, that I do not think that I can support him? That is a shame, because we have both served on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. He was a doughty and—I shall use the term—challenging Member to the Chair, as I was at that point. I very much enjoyed his contribution, as he scrutinises things personally and ensures that he tries to test things to the absolute limit, but I do not think that I can support him, given all the concerns about procurement raised by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. I understand that that is not decided yet, and there might be a need for such measures, but I cannot support anything that might get in the way of the Bill taking effect.
Reflecting the comments made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, the Minister has been nothing other than totally efficient and effective in dealing with the Bill. He has responded generously, which is an example to other Departments and Ministers when we try to get such legislation through the House. If he is prepared to say that this is happening within the timescale allocated in the Bill, I would be more than happy and satisfied, having worked with him and seen the way in which he approaches these issues. I encourage the hon. Member for Christchurch not to press his amendments, as they would not have the support of practically anyone in the House, but I am more than happy to support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I want to speak, very briefly, about new clause 1 and amendment 6. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on the progress that his Bill has made, and particularly congratulate him on the new clause and amendment, which clarify the possibilities for a truly independent appeals procedure.
Landowners clearly have a right to decide on reasonable and fair terms for the way in which their land is used, but, as we know from our constituency postbags and email inboxes, in too many cases those terms do not seem fair. The processes for contesting unfairly issued parking tickets are expensive and drawn out, and motorists who are willing to contest a ticket through the courts take a disproportionate risk in the form of a dramatic escalation from the original fine as well as, of course, the legal costs. While we would not wish to prejudge the outcome of the parking code, one possibility that should be considered is the handling of appeals by a single independent person, and the measures allowing that person to be appointed and the funds to come from fees collected from the private operators covered by the scheme are therefore sensible.
Sir Greg Knight
Will my hon. Friend also give himself credit? It was partly as a result of the representations that he and others made that I decided to table the new clause and amendments.
Mike Wood
I thank my right hon. Friend for that generous intervention, but I fear that it may be a little too generous. The work that he and his team, and Ministers, have done has been key to the Bill.
I will certainly support both my right hon. Friend’s amendments and the Bill’s Third Reading, but I am afraid that I do not find myself able to support amendment 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I think that we have a responsibility to ensure as far as possible that the provisions in our legislation are enforceable, and I therefore question the wisdom of legislative provisions requiring best endeavours on the part of the Government, although I have no doubt whatsoever that Ministers will at all times exercise such best endeavours. I am particularly reassured by the undertakings given by my right hon. Friend to harry Ministers if that becomes necessary, and I am in absolutely no doubt that he is perfectly capable of making Ministers’ lives a misery, just as he has promised.
Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of this important Bill, and I commend the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) for his hard work in championing it and enabling it to reach this stage. I also congratulate all the Members who have worked on it with him.
The Bill will, I hope, lead to long overdue change in the car parking industry. It is alarming to hear from Citizens Advice that parking companies are issuing 13 times more tickets than were issued a decade ago. This is a business model that is designed to exploit motorists rather than fulfilling its purpose. It is a case of several cowboy parking companies treating motorists in the most unfair terms, and it cannot be allowed to continue. Throughout our debates we have heard of a range of problems that motorists have faced, from poor signage and broken machines to appeal systems that lack transparency and fail to apply any common sense. Today we have the opportunity to ensure fairness for British motorists.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I support the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that some of these car parks are set up to trap motorists and lure them in? Their real aim is to get motorists not to pay the parking fee, but to pay the fine.
Faisal Rashid
I totally agree. It can be difficult for the general public to understand these machines; they are set up to be confusing and then people get trapped. We are passing a Bill that will oblige the Government to introduce a new statutory code of practice to spell out what behaviours can be reasonably expected from private car parking operators.
As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, who is in charge of this Bill, highlighted on Second Reading, there are almost 19 million journeys a day that end at a parking space. This is truly a Bill that will affect almost every person in this country in some way; it is an issue that hugely affects my constituents in Warrington South, as it affects the constituents of many other Members here. I have been contacted by a number of people who have told me of issues they have faced with parking companies. In most of these cases, my constituents are being penalised for breaking an obscure term of the car park, or they are being falsely accused of not purchasing a parking ticket.
One constituent told me that she had purchased a ticket but made a genuine mistake and failed to enter her vehicle registration number correctly. As a result, my constituent was sent a number of letters threatening court action if she did not pay a substantial fine. Despite the innocence of her mistake, the letters scared my constituent into offering up the money.
Such threatening and exploitative behaviour is totally unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue, and this is far from a one-off incident. I have been contacted by several constituents who made similar mistakes, often entering a single digit or character of their vehicle registration incorrectly, and have then been faced with fines and threatening letters.That is wholly unacceptable, especially as these mistakes are often made because of parking companies’ deliberately misleading signage and complicated machines.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on introducing this timely Bill.
The hon. Gentleman is talking about parking companies that almost set motorists up to fail to be able to meet their terms, but it is not just the small operators who do this. It is alleged that NCP—National Car Parks—in the centre of Crawley has been charging motorists for illegal parking when it does not even have planning permission for the CCTV to monitor those cars. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the large companies must also comply with best practice?
Faisal Rashid
I totally agree: all operators, whether large, medium-sized or small, should be part of this code of practice.
Some of my constituents are being targeted with letters demanding money and threatening court action. Indeed, some people have contacted me to tell me that the situation has become so bad that motorists are being discouraged from visiting some of the town centres for fear of being targeted by rogue parking companies. This is a deeply sorry state of affairs; it is bad for my constituents and bad for our local economy, especially in the run-up to the festive season. High streets and town centres are already struggling. Rather than coming into town to spend money on the high street, people are choosing to stay at home and shop online.
The regulation of private parking companies that this Bill proposes is long overdue, and I am pleased that it has secured cross-party support. If this Bill is passed today, it will be welcomed not only across this House, but across the country. It is good to see that in a time of much division in this place there are still opportunities for colleagues to put aside their differences and work together to improve the lives of their constituents.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) and his excellent contribution. I could not agree more with the points that he has made, and I entirely endorse this Bill. I just want to make a few additional remarks. The overarching point —it has been indicated before but it bears emphasis—is that so many of these companies are a law unto themselves, and it is important to iterate the distress and concern that their actions can cause. When someone is faced with what looks like an official letter demanding considerable sums of money, they can become enormously distressed by that. The concern is that these individuals are making these demands on an entirely specious basis, and I want to give the House two examples—
Pete Wishart
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to come to the amendments. We are now discussing the amendments that have been tabled by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), and we are all desperate to make our Third Reading speeches, which will deal with some of the finer features of the Bill. I want to know what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) thinks about the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire’s fine amendment about the appeals process.
Alex Chalk
I will be getting to that point, but it is important to set the context as well.
My first example affects one of my own constituents. I was making a point about the distress that can be caused by these demands, many of which are being issued on a specious basis. I had a constituent in Cheltenham, in a road near Montpellier Terrace, who received a letter demanding that a fine be paid. However, it turned out that the company demanding the money was seeking to claim a parking ticket in respect of land that belonged to the person receiving the ticket. That was an extraordinary situation. In other words, the company had not bothered to check with the Land Registry to find out who owned the land. When I looked into it, it turned out that the parking company had been called in because of a vexatious neighbour dispute. The neighbour had called in the parking company to try to get at his own neighbour. This is a prime example of why we need a sensible system of regulation, to ensure that the system is not misused in that way.
The second example that I want to give, before turning expeditiously to the amendments that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has mentioned, relates to my own situation. Seven years after the event, a parking company wrote to me to suggest that my car, which had long since been sold on, had been wrongly parked. I knew that this area of law was covered by contract law, and that this was way out of time in any event, even if the underlying suggestion was correct. The truth is, I could not remember, because it had happened seven years previously. However, such an episode would be upsetting for people who did not have that knowledge and who would not realise that such a demand was time-barred.
I shall now turn to the new clause and the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), whom I congratulate on bringing forward this brilliant Bill. He is right to have a single point of appeal; that is enormously sensible. There is not a great deal that I want to add to that, other than to say that I hope that the clause will be flexible enough to ensure that there are sufficient resources to deal with these points. The reason I say that is that new clause 1(1) states:
“This section applies if the parking code contains guidance recommending that all parking appeals are dealt with by a single person who is independent of persons providing private parking facilities.”
All I can say is that I hope there will be more than one person, because there are likely to be a great number of appeals. I hope that it will be appropriate for the singular to include the plural. I am sure that that point will be dealt with, but there needs to be more than one person.
I also want to deal with the proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the use by the Secretary of State of “his best endeavour”. I understand the logic behind his proposal, but I respectfully suggest that it is unnecessary in this case. The point has been made that there is a danger of seeing ghosts where none exists, so to speak. The wider point, however, is that, were this provision to be required, it would surely be required in every piece of legislation that this House passes. That would transfer power from this House, where hon. Members can properly hold the Executive to account for allegedly dilatory behaviour, to outside the House because, as my hon. Friend rightly acknowledges, the issue would become justiciable. We could then have a situation where a person could serve a writ suggesting that the Government had not used best endeavours to bring legislation into effect, which would cost a huge amount of time, expense and inconvenience. More importantly, this House would effectively be precluded from discussing it, because it would then be a matter under discussion by the High Court, which would be an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Michael Tomlinson
As ever, my hon. Friend is using his forensic intellect to consider these matters, but is not the situation worse than that? Even if it were justiciable, the phrase “best endeavour” is simply too vague. It would be impossible to judge, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) pointed out in an earlier exchange, whether a Minister had or had not used best endeavour.
Alex Chalk
Absolutely right. The Court would not thank this House at all for requiring it to make that kind of assessment. One could imagine how the evidence would have to be provided on both sides. The Minister would provide timelines, and then the Court might have to consider what the Opposition had to say. How on earth would the Court be meant to make a judgment?
Kevin Brennan
Does the hon. Gentleman suspect, as I do, that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has tabled his amendments to make a point about Brexit, rather than about this Bill? We would therefore forgive him if, at this stage, he chose not to press his amendments, having made that point so well in his contribution today.
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman recognises that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is a Member of great distinction and resourcefulness. It may just be possible that that is his intention. If it is his intention, he has certainly made the point with his customary eloquence and effectiveness. Yes, I think this would be an excellent moment for him to recognise that the point is made, and he could therefore graciously not press his amendments.
Sir Christopher Chope
My amendment 8, which seeks to incorporate the phrase “best endeavour”, is completely nugatory in terms of legality or enforceability, and I take the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) that “best endeavour” is a meaningless phrase. I therefore will not press the amendment. We would not want to litter our statute book with meaningless phrases, whether it be in the withdrawal Act or in this Bill.
Alex Chalk
That was elegantly done. Well, on that basis, I do not have much more to say. I have made the points I wanted to make.
With the Bill being improved in the way that has been proposed, I end by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire. This is past time, and the Bill will be welcomed in my constituency, by the constituent I mentioned, by me and, I am sure, by Members on both sides of the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
It is wonderful when both sides of the House come together to support and put in place legislation that will make a practical difference to the day-to-day lives of the millions of people we represent. In that vein, I wholeheartedly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on highlighting this issue, and on the tenacity and diligence with which he has brought the issue to the Floor of the House and to Committee. I pay tribute to him, and many people will be grateful for his efforts.
I will speak briefly now, and perhaps respond to hon. Members’ comments more generally on Third Reading. For now, I will limit my remarks to the various new clauses and amendments.
New clause 1 will appoint a single appeals service to create further clarity for consumers, giving a well-signposted route to appeal a private parking ticket. I am delighted on behalf of the Government to support the new clause. It and the associated amendments will ensure that there is a fair, transparent and consistent appeals service for motorists. This has been warmly welcomed by consumer groups and the parking industry alike.
I am pleased to tell the House that Steve Gooding, the director of the RAC Foundation, has said:
“we particularly welcome the proposal for a single, independent appeals service, which, together with a single, clear code of practice should establish a better, clearer framework and a level playing field that is fairer for all”.
The foundation has challenged the effectiveness of self-regulation in the parking industry. Only this week, it drew attention to the fact that in the second quarter of the financial year, private parking companies sought yet another record number of vehicle keeper details from the DVLA with which to pursue ordinary drivers and motorists.
The chief executive of one of the industry’s leading trade associations, the British Parking Association, has said that the association welcomes the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, commenting that they
“chime with our call for a single standard body, single code of practice and a single independent appeals service. This framework provides a unique opportunity to deliver greater consistency and consumer confidence”.
The BPA looks forward to pushing
“for a positive outcome for all.”
It is therefore with pleasure that the Government can support new clause 1.
I am also pleased to support, on behalf of the Government, amendments 1 to 6, which are pragmatic alterations that will support the Bill’s delivery through secondary legislation. They will give the Secretary of State the ability to delegate functions to non-public bodies, such as experts in auditing, as seems eminently sensible. They will clarify the role of the Secretary of State, in that he or she will have final approval of the code of practice and any subsequent alterations that will be submitted to Parliament. Finally, as my right hon. Friend stated, the amendments will expand the existing levy under the Bill to cover the cost of appointing and maintaining a single appeals service. The Government support all the amendments.
Let me turn briefly to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I welcome his broad support for the Bill’s measures, and share his commitment to, and enthusiasm for, ensuring that the measures start making a practical difference to people as soon as possible. However, following the arguments that have already been made by various Members on both sides of the House, I, too, do not believe that the amendments are necessary. I can personally assure my hon. Friend that the Government and I are committed to creating and publishing a code of practice for the private parking industry as soon as is practically possible. I can confirm that considerable work has already gone into this, and I will happily walk the House through that in a second.
More generally, placing an arbitrary timeline on the process of developing a code and implementing the Bill would compromise our ability to make sure that the Bill comes into force in the way that we want it to, and with the impact that we all desire it to have. For example, a consultation with the public is necessary. Given the scale and volume of the correspondence to our postbags and email inboxes, which are already full regarding this topic, one can imagine that that consultation will be of extreme importance to many people whom we represent. They will want time to have their say, and we should make sure that that is possible. Furthermore, as has already been outlined, procurement practices might be required, and if they should be required, they will be subject to statutory timelines that need to be obeyed. Lastly, if the code of practice was going to put in place new provisions around such things as standard signage, standard forms of parking tickets or standard language, it would be appropriate for a suitable transition period to be put in place to allow companies to adjust to the new, fairer measures.
Sir Christopher Chope
Taking all that the Minister is saying into account, what is his best estimate as to when these measures will actually be effective in law?
Rishi Sunak
I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise answer to that question, simply because, in the first instance, I am not in control of the parliamentary process in the other place, as he will be aware.
However, what I can do for my hon. Friend and the House is to give some evidence as to the pace and commitment with which I and my team are working on this issue. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), had already, even before the Bill’s Second Reading, asked the director of the RAC Foundation to form a working group to start developing an outline code of practice. That working group contains multiple stakeholders from across the industry, including the two main trade associations—the BPA and the International Parking Community—the Welsh and Scottish Governments, and bodies such as People’s Parking, the RAC Foundation, the traffic penalty consortium, the British Retail Consortium, and the DVLA. The body has already met four times—each time extensively, for over two hours—to debate all the issues. I personally have spent time with the director of the RAC Foundation and the BPA, and I am shortly to meet the IPC. My officials have had more than 30 bilateral meetings with members of the working group. At my instigation, my officials have hosted a parking operator roundtable in the Department to fully engage the industry to help to develop the code of practice.
All that work has not been in vain. It has informed a draft code of practice, which has already been published and shared with the Public Bill Committee, and I would be delighted to place a copy of it in the Library for hon. Members to see. I hope that, collectively, this will give all hon. Members the reassurance they need that the Government and I are firmly committed to developing this code of practice, and ensuring that the legislation is enacted as quickly and practically as is possible.
Sir Greg Knight
May I just echo the Minister’s final comment? I, too, hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), having heard the pledges of support for the Bill and the clear expressions of good will, particularly from Front Benchers, will not press his amendments to a vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. It is very good to have clarity for the Chair.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 6
Delegation of functions
Amendments made: 1, page 3, line 14, leave out from “may” to “functions” in line 20 and insert “—
(a) enter into an agreement with a public authority authorising the authority to perform any functions of the Secretary of State under sections1 to4 (other than the function of laying a code or alteration before Parliament);
(b) enter into an agreement with a person authorising that person to perform any”.
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to delegate functions relating to the investigation of breaches of the parking code to bodies that are not public authorities.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 28, leave out “public authority which is” and insert “person”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, page 3, line 34, leave out “the final version of”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 4, page 3, line 35, at end insert “for approval”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, page 3, line 36, leave out “The” and insert
“Once the Secretary of State has approved the code or alteration, the” .—(Sir Greg Knight.)
Amendments 3 to 5 make clear that, where the Secretary of State has delegated the function of preparing the parking code, the Secretary of State must approve the final version of the parking code (or any alteration to it) before it is laid before Parliament.
Clause 7
Levy for recovery of administrative and investigation costs
Amendment made: 6, page 4, line 3, at end insert—
“() where the Secretary of State has entered into an agreement with a person under section (Appeals against parking charges) (appeals against parking charges), the establishment and maintenance by the person of a service for dealing with parking appeals (within the meaning of that section).” —(Sir Greg Knight.)
The effect of this amendment is that, where the Secretary of State enters into an agreement with a person for the person to deal with appeals against parking charges (see NC1), the costs of establishing and maintaining that parking appeals service may be defrayed out of the proceeds of the levy imposed on accredited parking associations.
Third Reading
Queen’s consent signified.
Sir Greg Knight
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a good-natured and constructive debate throughout our proceedings, and I wish to thank everyone who has taken part. In particular, but not exclusively, I would thank the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), and his predecessor, who first indicated to me that the Government were willing to support this measure. I also wish to thank Sarah McLean and Phillip Dunkley, her predecessor, who managed the Bill in the Department and have been very helpful to me. There are many other people I wish to thank: Steve Gooding of the RAC Foundation; my parliamentary colleagues who served on the Committee; members of the advisory group, which I have also attended and played a part in, who have discussed these matters; and, last, but certainly not least, the official Opposition for their support for this measure, the Scottish National party and my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—and he is my hon. Friend—who pledged his support, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who is also my hon. Friend and is a sponsor of the Bill. I am also grateful to the many people throughout the country who have contacted me with stories of how they have been unfairly treated by parking operators under the current voluntary regime.
As I have said, parking is an indispensable part of motoring, as if someone undertakes a journey in a vehicle, they will need to park it. According to the DVLA, there are 38 million vehicles on our roads, approximately 19 million of which will be driven each day and will then undertake at least one parking transaction. The number of penalty notices issued every year from private car parks continues rise, so it is essential that the Bill makes further progress. It is essential that those who park on private land are treated fairly and uniformly.
Motorists should have certainty that when they enter a car park, they are entering into a contract that is reasonable and transparent, and that involves a consistent process. That is not just my view: in 2015, some 78% of respondents to the Department’s discussion paper on private sector off-street parking stated that there were significant problems with how the sector conducts its business. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant so-called fines, aggressive demands for payment and opaque appeals processes need properly to be outlawed.
Some private parking operators still deploy tactics that are clearly unacceptable. I have previously referred to an appalling case involving a pensioner called Angela, whose car was ticketed for £70 for exceeding the time permitted in the car park. Angela is 5 feet tall and although she had not initially noticed the parking sign, when she came back to her car she looked for it. It was mounted so high up on a pole that she could not read what it said. That is clearly unacceptable.
Another motorist, Mr O’Keefe, whose case I have also mentioned before, was driving on a private industrial estate, searching for a particular business that he was having difficulty finding. He stopped in an empty lay-by for around 15 seconds to reset his satellite navigation system and was filmed by a passing security van equipped with a video camera. One week later, he received a penalty invoice for £100 for stopping in breach of a sign that was situated not in the lay-by itself, but some distance further along the road. He realised that he had passed it at 30 mph. The parking company accepts that he was parked for only around 15 seconds, but when he used its appeals procedure, he still received threatening letters.
The hon. Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) mentioned one of many cases in which usually pensioners, although not always—some of the cases that have come to my attention have involved pensioners—type one digit of their registration number into the machine incorrectly and the machine does not allow for any correction of the details already entered. The fee is nevertheless paid, but a ticket is issued. So, for many people, parking on private land can be a traumatic and expensive business.
One of the reasons why we need a mandatory code now is that technology is being used to provide evidence. The growing misuse of automatic number plate recognition cameras is a particular worry to me. Cameras ostensibly enable private parking companies to keep a record of exactly how long a motorist has remained in a car park and provide photographic evidence if they exceed the time they have paid for. They say that the camera never lies, but things are not always as they seem.
In one car park at a fast food restaurant in Nottinghamshire that is policed by CCTV, drivers are told they must not enter the car park when the restaurant is closed. However, the signage telling them that is located inside the carpark itself, along with the details of the opening times of the restaurant, making it impossible for a motorist to know before they enter the car park whether they will receive a private parking notice.
At another private car park at a fast food outlet in Enfield, a driver was recently issued with a parking charge notice for overstaying. In this case, the motorist visited the restaurant twice in one day. The ANPR cameras recorded her leaving the car park on the first visit and returning for the second. By using the photos the wrong way around, the car park operators tried to charge her a penalty for a period when she was not even in the car park.
Henry Smith
My right hon. Friend is continuing to make a powerful argument. One of my constituents recently parked at a McDonald’s so that he could go in and complain that his drive-thru order was incorrect, and he received a penalty notice. It is not only the small rogue operators that abuse the system; some large companies are also sailing extremely close to the wind.
Sir Greg Knight
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. These examples are all, clearly, very distressing for the motorist concerned, as are the language and the threats that are often used—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). It is, however, important to remember that these companies have no legal power to fine motorists. That is something only the police, local councils and those enforcing railway byelaws can do. As a result, some private parking companies deliberately make their parking charges look very similar to official penalty charge notices. When the police or the local authority issue a fine, it will often be labelled as a “PCN”—a penalty charge notice—and may come in an official yellow cellophane wrapper. Some private companies are now using similar packaging and are even labelling their notices with the word, “PCN”, but this time it stands for parking charge notice. Often the term enforcement is used, but these companies do not have any enforcement powers.
Sir Christopher Chope
None of these companies would be able to operate in this way if they were not able to get access to the DVLA database. Why is nothing being done about that?
Sir Greg Knight
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, when this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, that is precisely what it will do: it will take away the right of a rogue company to seek vehicle keeper details, thereby putting it out of business.
Kevin Foster
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole purpose of this Bill—I will come on to this in my own speech in a minute—is to create a clear and single source for the code of practice and regulation so that the rogue operators cannot shop around, and also if those operators are not approved, they cannot approach the DVLA? What is at the absolute core of this Bill is stopping this flagrant abuse that is going on.
Sir Greg Knight
Indeed that is the case. In reality, these private parking notices are not fines, but invoices. It is the law of contract that governs the relationship between the parking company and the customer, as has previously been said. In other words, they are a demand for payment, because the car parking company says that a driver has breached their terms and conditions. They are private parking notices, and the code should require them to be described as such in future, and I am sure that the Minister will do that and that those companies will not be able to use threatening language or imitate or copy a ticket received from the police.
My Bill is designed to bring these bad practices and bad behaviour to an end. It requires the Government to create a mandatory code of practice across the parking sector to end inconsistent practices and unfair treatment of motorists. It will ensure that the terms on which private parking is provided, including the rights and obligations of each party, are fair, clear and unambiguous. The mandatory code will assure drivers that private car park operators will in future treat them in a reasonable and proportionate manner. If they do not, motorists will have access to a robust and independent appeal service. As I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), erring car park operators will be put out of business by being denied access to the DVLA database. May I repeat again that I am most grateful to have the support not only of the Government, but of the Official Opposition and the Scottish National party? I say to the House that, today, we can take a big step towards making private parking a fairer and more predictable experience for us all. I commend my Bill to the House.
Pete Wishart
Once again—this is now getting to become a feature—I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on progressing this Bill through the House with such dexterity, skill and consensus. I welcome the fact that, after today, this will soon become law. I also extend my congratulations to everyone involved, particularly to the Minister, who, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, has been nothing other than consensual, effective and efficient in ensuring that this Bill has got through the House, and to everyone else who was on the Bill Committee with the right hon. Gentleman.
For me, this Bill cannot come soon enough. We need a firm of code of practice that will constrain the worst excesses of these private parking companies. I do not know what Perth has done to deserve the attention of some of the more sharper practices of the parking operators, but for far too long we have been blighted by some of the worst excesses of these parking operators. They almost act, until this Bill, as a law unto themselves. I refer to them as parking cowboys, because that is exactly what they are. They harass and frustrate our constituents and drive tourists away from our town and city centres.
I am sick and tired of receiving emails from people complaining about the behaviour of parking companies, telling me that they will never again visit Perth city centre because of the negative experience they had when they had the misfortune to end up in a car park operated by one of these companies. I have received more complaints about one car park in the city of Perth than about any other issue. That car park is operated by the lone ranger of the parking cowboys: the hated and appalling Smart Parking—I see that many other Members are unfortunate enough to have Smart Parking operating in their constituencies. It has reached the stage where one member of my staff now spends a good part of each day just helping my constituents and visitors to my constituency to navigate the appeals process.
Luke Graham
I am indeed the hon. Gentleman’s neighbour, and I can confirm that I, too, receive many complaints about that same operator, from constituents in South Perthshire and from people in Clackmannanshire who visit Perth. I therefore want to say how much I support the Bill. Hopefully our staff will soon be able to focus more on the things that really matter to our constituents, rather than having to deal with car parking complaints, which really are the companies’ responsibility to fix.
Pete Wishart
I understand totally the frustration felt by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who have to park in Perth city centre. I hope that we will both see the amount of correspondence we receive in our mailbags on this issue decrease significantly as a result of the Bill.
Another frustration is that Smart Parking is singularly unresponsive. It does not reply to representations from Members of Parliament or have meetings with us. It does not even start to engage with some of the difficulties we identify with its operation. I wish to commend The Courier newspaper in Perthshire for the campaign it has mounted about the situation. One of the reasons I am down here today as the Member of Parliament is the very fine work that The Courier has done on the situation right across Perthshire. I congratulate it on that.
The Bill means that these companies will no longer be able to get away with that type of behaviour. The days when they could distribute fines like confetti, and when they could confuse and frustrate our constituents with their so-called smart technology and poor signage in order to harvest fines, are coming to an end. The Bill is evidently necessary, because self-regulation has been a resolute failure. The toothless regulators, such as the British Parking Association, are singularly incapable of dealing with the sharper practices of the rogue operators.
The British Parking Association actually lists some of the operators as its members. I had a meeting with it this week, and it gave me a copy of its magazine, which includes a list of all its members, and who should be listed there, in bold letters? It was Smart Parking. The BPA does not have the ability to regulate these companies and has shown no sign whatsoever that it is trying to get on top of some of the sharper practices. The BPA gives a veneer of legitimacy to some of the more outlandish rogue operators by including them in their membership, allowing them to continue to operate. The Bill will oblige operators such as Smart Parking to amend their practices.
I want to mention another practice that I have observed in a retail park in my constituency—this is actually worse than Smart Parking. Two private parking companies operate one huge car park at St Catherine’s retail park in Perth. One company circled the car park with signs telling motorists that, if they had the temerity to leave the part of the retail park where they had used a parking space to access shops in other parts of it, they would be fined. It did that, and it actually took photographs of people leaving their car and going into other parts of the retail park where the facilities are covered by another parking operator. That is what it did, and this is the extent to which some of these private parking operators work. It is not good enough, and it has to end.
I want to say to the Minister that I think what he is doing is fantastic. I have seen some of the details he is going to put into the code of practice and I think they are fantastic. I congratulate him on taking the maximalist approach. I think the Government will approach this by ensuring they will do the utmost they can to protect the motorist from this type of practice. They will put in place a set of regulations that will ensure the best result we can get when it comes to these things.
Among the things I want to make a plea for including in the code of practice—given what I have heard from the Minister, I am pretty certain that he will be looking at them—are equipment and technology. We have to make sure that we get the signage absolutely right and that surface markings are clearly identified and regulated properly. There should be clear and accessible displays of the terms and conditions of the car park. We have already heard examples of when that does not actually work. I know that the Government are looking at consideration periods to allow motorists sufficient time to decide whether they would like to park, and grace periods to allow motorists time to pay and leave the car park. All of this would make a real difference to the parking arrangements in our cities and town.
I believe these parking companies intentionally deploy poor signage. The fact that motorists can be fined simply for entering a car park to look for a space is simply and clearly unacceptable. One of the car parking operators in my constituency actually fines people for entering a zero instead of the letter o. Apparently, the smart technology cannot cater for that, but the operator takes no recognition of that when people appeal on such a basis.
Another of my pleas to be included in the code—the Minister may be able to help us with this one—is capping fines, a feature that I think we all agree must happen. The fact that someone can be fined £140, £160 or £180 for parking a car is simply and utterly absurd. I think, and I hope, that this will be addressed. My suggestion is that fines or parking charge notices in private car parks should be no more than those of the local authority. I think it is fair that there is a uniform cost that people pay in any city or town across the country, and I am pretty certain that we will get to such a place.
I know the Government’s intention is to ensure that what are called PCNs will no longer be able to look like fines from the local authority, and that is really important. Will the Minister tell us how this will be done and how he intends to ensure that that happens? Parking companies have to get away from this confusion with local authority penalty charge notices, and they must do so without using the threatening and intimidating language on these tickets.
What I would like to see on such tickets is the full legal basis on which they can be distributed. As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said, this is a contractual arrangement, so they are not fines. If the private parking company is to pursue such a case, it has to take it to the civil court to demonstrate clearly that the motorist has breached the terms and conditions of using the private car park. That should be mentioned on the parking ticket, as issued by the private operator. I think that would be fair.
Sir Greg Knight
I would argue that if the parking operator takes an erring motorist to a civil court and it is shown in court that the form of private parking notice was not as laid down in the mandatory code of practice, that should be a case for dismissing the claim.
Pete Wishart
I totally and utterly agree. I will come back to access to the DVLA register later in my speech. The key to all this is the DVLA register and ensuring that access to it is predicated on good behaviour. If there are any examples of any of these companies going back to such sharp practices, they should be dealt with effectively and not given access to the DVLA register.
I am particularly delighted that the Government are looking at debt collection issues. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government will state explicitly that operators cannot sell or assign debt to a third party, as that has to happen. The use of aggressive debt collection companies is probably the most grotesque, threatening and intimidating feature of parking companies’ behaviour, and the part of their operation that concerns me most. I cannot remember which hon. Member mentioned vulnerable customers who receive some of these letters, and what it must do if they receive a letter that tells them that the charge will impact on their credit rating. I think that is illegal—perhaps one of the greater legal minds here will clarify that for me—but that is the sort of thing that those letters include.
Debt collection companies increase the tempo and rate of intimidation and threat. One of my constituents received 10 letters from a range of different companies, with an increasing tone of belligerence and threat. It is right for private parking companies to expect settlement, and to deploy reasonable steps to recover it, but we cannot continue to allow threatening and aggressive letters that demand payment simply for parking a car.
Access to the DVLA is the prize that parking companies require to ensure they can continue to operate. The Government will introduce conditions for access to the DVLA database—perhaps the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire will confirm that—so that proper auditing must be conducted before an operator can join a parking association, and that compliance must be demonstrated. I believe it should be incumbent on parking operators to demonstrate fully that they are a responsible operator in order to get DVLA access, and if there are examples of bad practice, that access must be removed.
I am grateful that the entire Bill covers the whole UK and will be applicable in Scotland. We have agreed a legislative consent memorandum in the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the Bill will apply across Scotland, and it is right that we have uniform measures such as this. I travel down to London and park my car here, just as hon. Members come to beautiful Perthshire to enjoy the fantastic features of my constituency, and it is right for everyone to expect the same level of service and regulation throughout the United Kingdom.
We have seen what this issue does to towns and cities. Parking is an essential requirement for any town or city centre, and the right hon. Gentleman was right to highlight how many trips are made and how many parking experiences are involved as we go from A to B. It can have a devastating effect on local economies if we do not get the issue right, so parking is an important ingredient in our community and the local economy.
In my experience, people are happy to pay for parking—I have never seen anybody suggest that we should get parking for free, and any place where free parking has operated has become a disaster and a free-for-all. We need efficient and effective parking in our towns and cities. People are even happy to pay parking fines if they know they have been wrong and perhaps overstayed, or something happened and they received a fine. What they cannot stand, however, and why we receive so much correspondence and so many complaints in our inboxes, is when the fines are unfair and imposed disproportionately, or when people are pursued by parking companies. Ultimately, it is not beyond our wit to design an arrangement where someone parks a car, makes a payment, and is assured that that is the end of the matter. Needing to ensure a code of practice shows how bad things have become, which is why we must address this issue.
I hope that this is high noon for the parking cowboys. I hope they are brought under control and that I will not have continually to respond to constituents and visitors to my constituency about the behaviour of a certain company. This is a good Bill, and we must now see the code of practice. I know the Minister will ensure that we are involved in designing that code, and when he responds to the debate I look forward to hearing some of the features that will be included. Finally, I congratulate once again my good friend, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, on sponsoring this Bill, which I am sure will be successful today.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on finally bringing this madness, quite frankly, to an end with this Bill.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have talked about their constituents’ experiences of receiving unfair parking enforcement notices. I declare an interest because I have experienced the exact same situation. I drove into an underground hotel car park, got my bag out and went into the hotel. A member of the hotel’s staff then told me how much the parking charge was—it was more expensive than the hotel room—but that there was a really good local authority car park around the corner. I took that advice. I got back in my car, drove out and parked in the local authority car park without any problem. However, I received a fine from a parking operator because I had driven in and driven out of the hotel car park five minutes later. I won my appeal, but the hotel company said that it would discipline its member of staff for advising me to park elsewhere. Perhaps that is a private Member’s Bill for another day.
On the border of my constituency, there is a local authority car park. Bizarrely, part of the land is privately owned. People park there because they think they can park for free, just as they can for the local authority part. There is no signage on the part that is privately owned and people do get charged. It is an absolute sting.
Sir Greg Knight
My hon. Friend is making a very good point. That is why it is essential that the code of practice has a transaction period that is free. In other words, it would give motorists thinking time between entering a car park and deciding whether or not to stay. In some parts of the country, car parks are situated in conservation areas where, for planning reasons, signage is inside. We need to give motorists time to go in and think, so they can say, “No, this is not for me” and leave without facing a penalty.
Huw Merriman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are talking about contract law. If people pick up an item in Boots priced £5 but at the till they are charged £10, many people think they can actually get the item for £5. In fact, under the offer and acceptance of contract law, the contract is formed only at the time of execution. Yet when one goes into a car park, one can be charged before executing the transaction. That has to be a breach of contract law.
On the charging mechanism, there is no proper definition for what is a reasonable and proportionate charge. That is of particular interest, because my former chambers sought a legal opinion from the Royal Automobile Club. The feeling was that the legal definition of reasonable and proportionate would be the cost of administering the charge. What was unusual was that the Supreme Court was asked to decide and found that £85 was reasonable and proportionate. The QC, however, felt that it was several times higher.
Perhaps the Minister could commit to guidance on what the charge should be. If that were to follow local authority charging, which outside London would be £60, I would perhaps stray into another area and say that I do not believe £60 is reasonable and proportionate. Local authorities will say that that is the cost because they do not make any profits, but I believe that they do. I believe that local authorities, time and again, use the money they raise from parking to pay for other areas of their spending. They are not supposed to do that. Barnet Borough Council, which was taken to court and lost, freely admitted that it was levying excessive charges to raise money for other services. No other local authority will ever admit that. There is a permitted amount they can spend from parking revenues on measures that enhance the environment. However, that is so wide and woolly that local authorities can effectively charge in any way they want.
James Cartlidge
Has my hon. Friend considered the position of rail companies? Under the Greater Anglia franchise, the rail company owns the car parks. The increase in its charges—I refer not to the fines, but to the cost of parking—is very substantial each year. They are unregulated, and the company has a monopoly. It seems to me that we should at least be considering those who probably have no choice but to pay the cost of parking—not just the fines.
Huw Merriman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His link to railways reminds me of another charge that I managed to land myself with—I have an unfortunate habit of doing that. In fact, I recently chaired an event with Gyles Brandreth at which a local authority won an award for its great parking policies, so I threw all my offences in—not in the hope that they would be rescinded. Season tickets are another issue for many. Someone buys a season ticket—so a company that has the machines knows that they have bought the season ticket—but if that person is unfortunate and the ticket falls down and is not on display when they close the car door, they will be charged because the ticket was not displayed, despite the fact that they have already purchased it. Again, there is the principle that someone cannot pay twice for the same transaction, but it is not being properly enforced. If my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire comes up with a private Member’s Bill again, there would still be much more to do. We are getting there on the private side of things, but I am afraid that our constituents do not necessarily see the differentiation. Many local authority practices are not working, too.
I will leave time for others to speak, but I could not stand up and talk about parking without mentioning my own parochial issues. There are only 12 local authorities left in the United Kingdom that still require the police to deal with parking matters on their high streets. I have two of those local authorities in my constituency. We have talked about police funding issues and that the police perhaps do not have the resources that they need to do everything, and rightly we have added another thing to their priorities this morning. The police in my constituency have turned around and said, “We are not going to carry on doing this.” Effectively, if someone overstays in a two-hour parking bay, it is a criminal offence and the police are required to take action. All the money raised goes straight to the Home Office, so there is no local incentive, and the police take the view that they should be doing other things, and I absolutely support them. The local authorities, however, do not want to take this on, so in my constituency there is a parking free-for-all on our high streets. It is so bad that I got Guide Dogs to come down and I walked around, first, blindfolded while being led, then with a cane, and then with a dog. It is absolute chaos for people; motorists are parking on dropped kerbs and on kerbs. Those are criminal offences, of course, but the police are not doing anything at all, not even in areas where local authorities have traffic wardens.
I mention this point even though I know that it will not be this Minister’s responsibility—it will be more for the Department for Transport. The Government have had very successful policies on our environmental causes—small measures that go down incredibly well with the public—but I feel that we are not doing the same with transport. People are absolutely sick and tired of the way that their high streets are being cluttered up. People are acting in an antisocial manner and getting away with it. In my constituency it has got so bad that I find myself taking photos and putting them on social media, which I probably should not do and is probably an offence of some type, but we have got to a point where we really need action.
The frustration for me as an MP is that when I make this point to local authorities, they do not necessarily want to take it on. When I make it to the police, they say they do not have the resources. I make the point about enforcement to the Department for Transport, but enforcement is not occurring either. It is not fair that my constituents, just because of where they reside, are under a regime that is completely old hat and which most other authorities have moved on from, and are stuck in this situation.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire. I am sorry to have wandered off into the other spheres of parking, but we should not kid ourselves as a House that this is solved just with regard to the private side of things. On the public and high street side, there is more to do, and our constituents would thank us if we did so.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on the progress of this much needed Bill, which I am pleased to support on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. It is long overdue, as we have heard today, and I thank him personally for his tenacity on this issue. He will be the champion of drivers across the land, because we all know and can all tell very similar tales of constituents who have been clobbered by these sharp practices.
Today we have seen the Commons at its best. We often hear—and our constituents are the first to point this out—“Why can’t you ever agree on any measures? Why can’t you come together in the national interest over X, Y and Z and just come to a common-sense view and get it done?” Today, we have done precisely that, and I genuinely thank the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, the Minister and the Scottish National party spokesperson, because this is the Commons at its best. We are getting things done for our constituents in every part of the United Kingdom.
There is a need for landowners and private car-park operators to have some control over those who park—no one would disagree with that—but enforcement must be fair, reasonable and proportionate. While many operators act properly—we should always remember that; we only hear about the nightmare cases, but there are operators who operate reasonably—the bad practices that we have discussed today colour people’s views of all parking operators, which is why the Bill is important, as it will provide uniformity in the code of practice and give people certainty about the rules across all private car parks. I have dealt with similar cases to those dealt with by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I have a cross-borough constituency, and will give two examples, one from each borough.
First, there is a small private car park in Denton, the main town in my constituency. It is next to a building that until recently was a bank. A bank customer parked in the car park next to the bank, which she was visiting, only to receive forceful letters and parking charge notices that looked like penalty charge notices a few days later. She had not realised that the car park next to the bank was not linked to it, as there was no signage. She successfully appealed against the charges with the help of my constituency office, but how many people would have been frightened into paying the charge because of the official-looking notice that they received?
Secondly, there is a large retail car park in Stockport. Until recently, it did not charge disabled people who displayed a blue badge. The car park is designed so that the disabled parking bays are closest to the retail units. Unfortunately, the pay-and-display machines are at the far end of the car park—it is not possible for the machines to be any further away from the retail facilities, which are near the disabled parking bays. Two minuscule signs were erected at the entrance to the car park. When people drive in they do not see signs that are about the size of the Dispatch Box. Disabled constituents of mine parked, as they always have done, in the disabled bay, did their shopping and drove away, only to receive a parking charge notice a few days later. Again, it is wrong that there was not even a sign on the disabled parking bays, let alone a pay-and-display machine close to those bays. That probably contravenes the Equality Act 2010, along with several other laws.
That is wrong, and that is why I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire for introducing the Bill. I hope that it will be seen by the sector as an opportunity to rebuild the shattered trust between car-park operators and the motoring public. Poor signage and sometimes no signage at all, unreasonable rules, exorbitant so-called fines, aggressive and excessive demand for payment and an appeals process that does not work in the interests of consumers constitutes behaviour that needs to be stopped. Having listened to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, I hope that the Secretary of State will take action once he is empowered by the Bill to do so, and, given the assurances from the Minister on Report, I expect that he will.
Similarly, action must be taken to ensure that parking companies are not able to raise the level of fines to mitigate the effects of the levy that will facilitate the scheme. We need to crack down on the bogus procedure whereby they are able to make their fines look official. These are not penalty charge notices; they are nothing of the sort. To frighten vulnerable and elderly people, in particular, into paying unreasonable charges when they do not have to do so is wrong, and something that the Bill seeks to address.
As others have already said, we need to ensure that there is a cap on fines, and that they are appropriate. I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire that they should be at a level similar to the level of fines imposed by the local authority in whose area the car park is located.
It is absolutely right ultimately to deny access to DVLA records to companies that do not properly adhere to the code, and I thank the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire for making it clear to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on Report that the Bill would provide for that. So many of my constituents cannot believe it is right for the DVLA to supply that information to cowboy operators, and it is most welcome that the loophole is to be closed.
As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman will be a hero among the long-suffering driving public. The Bill offers the prospect of a single set of standards that will help to end the confusion created by multiple codes of practice and appeals systems—and in many cases none—and will ultimately be fairer to all drivers. We wish it Godspeed in the other place, and look forward to its becoming law and saving so many drivers throughout the United Kingdom so much heartbreak.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for that slight note of surprise.
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). He is absolutely right: this is a fantastic opportunity for us all to agree on something. I am sometimes confused with the hon. Gentleman because our constituencies sound rather the same. We are, of course, on different sides of the House, but it is nice to be together on this occasion.
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to give my support to this welcome and timely Bill, which I am pleased to see continuing its passage through the House. I am also pleased that it has the support of the British Parking Association and the RAC Foundation. There is clearly consensus on the need for a parking code of practice for private parking providers in an industry that currently lacks regulatory rigour. Sadly, there are three separate codes of practice among the accredited trade associations, with the British Parking Association code stipulating one set of requirements and the International Parking Community another. That inconsistency is inappropriate, and I am delighted that the Bill seeks to address it so comprehensively. That is why it has already sailed through Committee and Report, and why all the clauses were agreed to without Divisions. I am sure that that is testament to the amazingly hard work that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) has put into this extremely well-drafted Bill.
Like other Members across the House, I have received letters and complaints, although I am pleased to say they are not in the same league as the notorious car park in Perth, which I will bear in mind if I ever travel to Perth. My own such parking experience took place in Redditch a long time ago, before I was the MP. I went to Redditch and was caught out by a dodgy parking operator. Hopefully, my constituents in Redditch will be delighted that the Bill will be passed today.
The RAC Foundation expects 6 million tickets to be issued by private parking providers this year alone, up from 4.5 million in the previous year. That highlights the lack of a consistent code of conduct and the lack of clarity. It is also borne out by figures from Citizens Advice, which reports that, last year, it was approached by over 10,000 people to ask for advice on private parking tickets. That is a huge number of people, considering the demand on its services.
I support the Bill and look forward to it progressing swiftly in the other place.
Kevin Brennan
May I join the long list of Members who have been praising the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) for introducing this Bill? He has had so much praise today that perhaps next Tuesday at the political studies awards, which will be shown on the BBC Parliament channel, he should get an award of his own for introducing this Bill. He will be well supported because I and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will be there with him at the awards, playing in MP4 and launching our new single “Do you see me?” I turn to the Bill. I was delighted to sponsor—[Interruption.] CDs are available at £5 on Revolver Records.
I was pleased to sponsor this Bill with the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. Why are we here? If we cannot in this place try to change things for the better for our constituents, there is little purpose in our being here, and this legislation genuinely will improve the quality of people’s lives. If they no longer have the stress and anxiety of receiving one of these fake notices—which is sometimes what they are—through the post, trying to extort money from them for simply going about their daily business, as anybody should be free to do, we will have done a great service to our constituents. If the Bill takes out some of the cowboy operators that every Member in this Chamber knows about through their constituency casework, we will have done a great service to our constituents. If it saves hard-pressed constituents a few quid because they have not been fooled—as is sometimes the case—into paying notices unnecessarily, we will have done them a great service. The right hon. Gentleman in particular and other Members who have contributed deserve credit for that. He does deserve some sort of award for bringing the Bill through. I am sure that will make the right hon. Gentleman extremely popular not only, as he already is, with his own constituents—I can say that as he has a very safe Tory seat—but with motorists and constituents across the country.
I am glad that the Bill was strengthened today through the new clause and the amendments that the right hon. Gentleman introduced, and I am sure that when it travels down the Corridor to the other place their Lordships will want to look at it very closely and perhaps consider strengthening it further in co-operation with the Government. But what is most important is that we get it on to the statute book as quickly as possible because it will make a genuine and positive difference.
In Committee, I mentioned some of the bad practices. I am not going to dilate at length—as Mr Speaker might say—on those issues this afternoon, but some companies, such as New Generation Parking, which I mentioned, do not even respond to correspondence from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents. In Committee, I expressed the view, which I know the Minister heard, that any code worth its salt would ensure that any company that failed to respond to a letter of concern from a Member of Parliament on behalf of their constituent would be in breach of that code. It should be a basic requirement on any decent company operating any kind of business that it should respond to a reasonable inquiry from a Member of Parliament within a reasonable time.
Sir Greg Knight
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that point. If a complaint is made about the receipt of a private parking notice, whether by the driver, the registered keeper or the registered keeper’s MP, it should in my view be responded to within 14 days.
Kevin Brennan
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has put that firmly on the record. He also responded positively in Committee when I intervened on him on this matter. I am sure that the Minister has heard what he said, and I hope that those who are preparing the code will also have heard that viewpoint being expressed here.
Perhaps we need to ponder further on the practice that is now developing of parking companies using technology to enforce these parking notices. I am concerned not only that they are using camera technology but that, in more and more cases, anyone who parks on private land—for example, the site of St David’s Hospital in my constituency, where there is no charge but we nevertheless have to register when we park—is required to enter their registration number into a machine in order to be deemed to have parked legally or appropriately there. How is the collection of that data being properly overseen? Who is responsible for ensuring that the personal data that is being collected in the form of our constituents’ registration numbers is being properly and legally processed? Further to that, the companies do not often provide a paper receipt from the machine, and people are expected to provide a mobile telephone number or sometimes an email address in order to get a receipt to prove that they have parked legally. Who is responsible for ensuring that the data being collected in that way is being properly processed?
This issue was brought to me by my constituent, Derek Donovan, who has campaigned heavily on issues relating to parking, and to private parking in particular. He has also pointed out that, even when we are not required to provide a registration number, the parking company can go to the DVLA and ask who the owner of a particular vehicle is. The way in which that information is handed out, and to whom, is not being properly co-ordinated by the DVLA—if indeed it is its responsibility to do that. Only a sample of cases is audited, so we cannot be sure that that data is in all cases being released to responsible people and used responsibly and legally. As a result, Derek Donovan has registered a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office, the outcome of which could prove pertinent to the passage of the Bill in another place if we hear from the ICO before the Bill goes through its other stages there.
I do not want to go on at length, because we want to ensure that the Bill completes its passage before we end our proceedings today. I reiterate my congratulations to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and I wish it well for its further passage at the other end of this building.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). I am enthusiastic about rising in support of this Bill, not least because I was on the Public Bill Committee on 19 July but, unfortunately, as I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government I did not have the opportunity to speak. I now take the opportunity to put on record my support for the Bill.
I wish the Bill could come into force immediately and, because I know it cannot, I refer my constituents who have issues with privately operated car parks to an excellent article in the Express & Star authored by Peter Madeley in which he sets out the advice from Sarah Garner of DAS Law on how to challenge these charges. There is clearly a difference between a parking charge notice and a penalty charge notice, and it is essential that my constituents understand the difference and are protected from the duplicitous actions of some of these private parking companies, not least because, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) pointed out, these fines can be as much as £100. It is important that we, as a Government and as a Parliament, protect the public from such practices.
Kevin Foster
I am conscious of time, so I will keep my remarks relatively brief. I am delighted to support my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) in securing the Bill’s Third Reading. About 18 months back, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones), who cannot be here today, and I secured a Westminster Hall debate on how the use of DVLA records and ANPR systems allows some of the sharpest cowboys in the parking world to put things out that frighten people and seek to get money from them. In many cases they use sharp practices such as, when a person enters their registration in the machine, the first button they press wakes up the machine, or the weird keyboard does not seem to be working that day, or, unlike local council car parks nearby that use such systems, they accept payment for registrations that are not in the car park, so a person who has actually paid can still get a fine afterwards.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the role of Premier Park in Exeter in supporting this legislation through its management of Marina car park in the middle of Torquay, which has produced a ton of complaints compared with the entirety of Torbay Council’s enforcement operation at 39 car parks and on-street car parking facilities.
This code of practice is overdue, and most of the industry will welcome it. Most of the industry want to manage and run car parks fairly. Most of the industry has nothing to worry about from the Bill, and actually actively supports it because they do not want to be undercut by rogue operators that rely on income generated from fines.
I am conscious of the time and that a few more colleagues would like to say some words in support of this welcome Bill, which I look forward to being enacted as quickly as possible.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to support this Bill, a sound piece of legislation sponsored by a sound Member from a sound part of the country. We should get on and pass it without further delay.
This is a serious issue. Some 10,000 people have been in contact with Citizens Advice over the past year in relation to parking fines, which can be traumatic and stressful for people who suddenly receive bailiff notices, threatening letters and other mail. One of the great things about this Bill is its flexibility; it is not a clunky thing that will become outdated as practice changes in the parking industry. Instead, the Bill will allow us to be flexible over time.
My experience demonstrates the need for this legislation. I have had experiences where certain operators have given me unfair fines, perhaps because they have wrongly typed in my car registration, and I have had successful redress and the fines have been dropped. In other cases, where the operators were more like the cowboys mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), I have not been successful. The Bill will bring coherence to the system and ensure a fair deal for everyone throughout the country.
It is brilliant that the Bill is supported by the industry. Andrew Pester, the chief executive officer of the British Parking Association, agrees that a single code is important to ensure that unscrupulous providers do not undermine the parking sector with bad practices. The Bill will allow future Ministers to be able to sort out the issues that other Members have raised, to avoid excessive fines, to avoid the failure to give notices, to avoid excessive legal charges in pursuing those things, to stop the sending of threatening letters to vulnerable people and, above all, to strike off cowboy operators by making it impossible for them to trade.
This is a superb Bill. It is exactly the sort of thing that this House should be doing, and it will be hugely welcomed by constituents. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who has done this country a service by bringing forward this excellent Bill.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
I, too, add my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) for all his work on this important Bill and for sticking up for the consumer, consumer rights and the small guy in the street.
Good-quality parking services are a vital element of all our communities. Before coming to this place, I had the enormous privilege of being the cabinet member responsible for parking services at Chichester District Council, where I saw that as a duty to work closely with businesses and the community at large to ensure that we provided good-quality and safe services. I am especially proud that during that time we upgraded all the car parks to include contactless payment and payment by mobile phones. Indeed, we won many awards for our safe car parks in Chichester.
Having proper, well-run parking services supports the wider economy, as it facilitates people to visit our city centres or quaint villages. This is especially true for rural areas where people mostly have to use a car to get to, say, Chichester. Most car park operators are honourable and seek to offer safe, convenient parking facilities, and to make life easier for people who are trying to visit the city, but it is clear that this ambition to provide a genuine service is not uniform, and there is therefore a clear need for this Bill.
One of my constituents recently came to me having been sent a fine for not purchasing a ticket in a private car park. Her car was registered as she entered the car park by CCTV cameras, and the computer system deemed her not to have paid. On appeal, she insisted that she had in fact paid and bought a ticket, but she was getting nowhere. It was her word against theirs, as is often the problem in these situations. A few weeks later, she returned to me triumphant because she had found her purchased ticket and was able to prove her innocence. However, most of us do not keep old parking tickets. Hearing stories like this, it is no surprise that we now see 13 times more fines issued than a decade ago.
I fully welcome this Bill as it will allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to implement best parking practice across the country and to have an appeals process, as well as improving the management and operational practice of our car parks.
It is also important to look to the future of parking. As well as issuing guidance for common standards and operation, I urge the Minister to consider the impact that technology is likely to have on this topic. Personalised parking using number plate recognition technology and differentiated pricing based on peak and off-peak periods are likely to become much more commonplace in future, but we should make sure that they are used to encourage good parking practices and to disincentivise bad ones.
I think it is safe to say that we all support this Bill. I look forward to seeing it in practice and putting an end to the sharp business practice that we have seen increasing in our car parks.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I am very pleased to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on bringing in this Bill, which is a good dose of common sense in this time of division. He has managed to unify the House. Perhaps we need more such Bills.
The Bill is common sense in so many ways. All of us, as MPs, receive way too many emails, letters and calls from our constituents raising concerns about parking. It makes absolutely no sense for us, in our offices paid for by the public purse, to effectively be as the customer services complaints process for some of the more disreputable car park operators. This Bill will help to avoid all that. Citizens Advice and other bodies are involved in these disputes to far too great an extent, as well. A single code of practice consistently applied means that if we go into a car park at one end of a street, it will have the same standards as the others. I also appreciate the penalty in the form of not having access to DVLA information should there be non-compliance with the code of practice.
My constituents always expect me to support common-sense Bills, and I will do so today.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Being a neighbour of and sharing a county with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), it is a pleasure to come here to support him and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on this Bill. This parking issue affects constituents from not only Perth and Kinross, but Clackmannanshire, on the other side of my constituency, who go into Stirling. They, too, have experienced extortionate fines for very small or misunderstood misdemeanours. Importantly, this Bill corrects a wrong that was identified by Citizens Advice Scotland in 2014 in its “It’s Not Fine” report, which set out how private practitioners need to clean up their act. This is now being addressed and it is great to see a national problem having a national solution in this Bill, with the support of Members from across the United Kingdom.
Mike Wood
This Bill is important not only in protecting motorists; it is vital to the vitality of our town centres. People who are afraid of high, arbitrary parking penalties do not come into town centres and so do not support local traders, and our high streets miss out. Parking providers have privileged access to DVLA records in order to enforce these charges. That is a privilege, and where providers are abusing their position through excessive charges and making sure that those escalate as a way of dissuading people from contesting the charges, despite there being insufficient signage, the provider should lose those privileges, even if they go out of business. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), in bringing forward this vital Bill, has earned the thanks of motorists from around the country. He deserves the thanks of the traders in our town centres who rely on this and he deserves the support of all of us in this House today.
Rishi Sunak
It is a pleasure to conclude this outbreak of consensus and unity. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) put it perfectly: of course private landowners and car park operators have the right to manage their land effectively, but that must be done in a fair, reasonable and proportionate manner. For the first time, as a result of this Bill, that is exactly what will happen. We have heard so many contributions from Members in all parts of this House about the sharp practices that our constituents have had to endure, and we will now be able to put an end to those nefarious ways of doing business.
So many specific examples have been given that it will be difficult to respond to all of them, but I wanted to touch on a few of the common themes that emerged in Members’ contributions. The issue of surface markings was raised by many Members and I can confirm that the code of practice should look at that, along with signage—the size, the things that should be included on signs and where they are located in car parks. Again, that is a common-sense measure.
Consideration and grace periods was another issue picked up on by many hon. Members. We heard examples of Members and their constituents being taken advantage of. Ensuring there are sensible periods to allow someone to come into a car park, decide whether they want to park and then leave again without charge, and to allow them when they return to be able to pay for their ticket, get to their car and leave are sensible measures that the code of practice will examine.
We heard a lot about the legal status of private penalty charge notices and the confusing nature of private companies using that legal language. I confirm, again, that the code of practice should and will look at that, as well as the language and information that should be included on those private parking notices, as we should perhaps call them. This could include the contact details for the parking operator, clear information about the appeals and the challenge process, timescales for payments and the details in relation to the breach of contract, so that no threatening or misleading language can be used in relation to the terms of the situation that the parker has found themselves in.
Fines were a topic raised by many Members. Of course it is sensible that there should be some element of fines, but those should be reasonable. I have heard and taken on board the suggestion from hon. Members about linking them in some way to local authority fine rates, which are already in existence. That idea definitely has merit and we will continue to explore it with the team. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) raised the issue of railway parking. As he knows from his time in the Department, railway parking is governed by separate rail byelaws. Obviously, our constituents are not aware of that, so we are working with the Department for Transport to see whether we can find consistency between the various different regulations.
I hope hon. Members will remain convinced of our commitment to bringing this legislation into force as soon as practicably possible. Of course we all join in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on his diligent and valiant efforts in this regard. In conclusion, I hope hon. Members can join me in thanking my team. A small team has been working on this incredibly important issue for many months. They have done a fantastic job and I am sure that they will continue to make us proud as we bring this legislation to bear.
Sir Greg Knight
With the leave of the House, I once again thank everyone who has taken part. In anticipation of his future help, I thank my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, who has agreed to take the Bill through the other place.
The message to cowboy parking operators from this Chamber is loud and clear: in future, you play by the rules or you are put out of business. Let us give the Bill our blessing and make parking a much fairer experience.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Voter Registration Bill
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill relates to electoral fraud and abuse, so I hope that it will receive the Government’s warm support. There is a lot of voter abuse of our electoral system, which undermines our democracy. The Government have undertaken various initiatives to try to build public confidence in the system. They have launched various inquiries, including Sir Eric Pickles’ inquiry, and engaged with the Electoral Commission.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Would the hon. Gentleman not say that the scandal of the number of people who are not on the register is bigger than the need for measures to keep people off it?
Sir Christopher Chope
The fact that some people do not register when they are entitled to do so is an issue, and everything is being done to try to encourage more people to register. That is the Government’s policy and I certainly support it. If the hon. Gentleman had wished to introduce a Bill to deal with another aspect of our electoral system, he could have done so, but this is a narrow Bill to prohibit people from being registered to vote in parliamentary elections in more than one constituency.
It seems to me that it would be a good idea to tidy up our system. Currently, large numbers of people are registered to vote in UK parliamentary elections in more than one constituency. It is, of course, against the law to vote more than once in a general election, but after the most recent general election, several people bragged that they had voted more than once because they had been able to vote in more than one constituency.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware of any people being prosecuted for voting twice at the general election?
Sir Christopher Chope
No, I am not. Indeed, that was what prompted me to introduce the Bill. After the general election, I spoke, in my naivety, to the Electoral Commission to inquire what it was doing to ensure that people who were registered in more than one constituency did not vote more than once. It became apparent that the commission does not have a national register, and therefore is not able to say whether a Mr David Jones in one constituency is the same Mr David Jones who voted in another constituency. That is why I have introduced the Bill.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I have every sympathy for what my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour is trying to achieve, but would clause 1(2) place an onerous burden on local authorities in respect of the checks required? Alternatively, does my hon. Friend envisage a national register such as that which he has just mentioned being brought into force as part of the Bill’s implementation?
Sir Christopher Chope
I envisage a national register. Indeed, I think the Government’s policy is to introduce a national register. I would be the first person to accept that the Bill is probably not perfectly drafted, and that anybody who wanted to try to undermine it would be able to do so.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
My hon. Friend says that he is not aware of anybody being charged. In fact, five people were charged—one was convicted and given a fine; two had no further action taken against them; and the cases against the other two are, I believe, still outstanding.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, but I am not sure whether those five cases were based on anything other than open admissions rather than detective work. We need a system that ensures that people do not vote in more than one constituency in a general election and therefore do not abuse the system by voting twice.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Would it not be better to put greater emphasis on the management of existing law, which makes it illegal to vote twice in parliamentary elections, rather than potentially removing the franchise from people who may be away from their home at the point at which an election is called?
Sir Christopher Chope
No, I do not. If people are away from their home, they are perfectly able to apply for a postal vote. Some people have more than one home. Why should those people be in a privileged position by being able to pick and choose the constituency in which they want to vote in a general election?
Sir Christopher Chope
I will not give way again because I am trying to develop my argument. It is obvious that not everybody accepts the principle that we should have a legal system that is as tight as possible so that it is easy to enforce against those people who carry out abuse. There were five prosecutions after the previous general election, but we know that the practice of voting in more than one constituency is much more widespread than that, as is reflected in both the Pickles report and also the work of the Electoral Commission.
Why do we not do everything possible to maximise the confidence in our electoral system and follow the recommendations that I propose in this Bill, which would ensure that if somebody registered with an electoral registration officer, they would, at the same time, have to declare that they were not already registered somewhere else? It is a pretty straightforward thing to do. There is also provision, which is not often enforced, that people should indicate their previous registered address, or that if they do not have a previous registered address, they should give some evidence of identity and perhaps also of nationality.
The electoral register is the key to the integrity of our system but, at the moment, it is very vulnerable. Another area of vulnerability is that if people are registered in more than one place and, to take the point of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), somebody is away, it is easy for somebody else to impersonate that person, knowing full well that they will not get caught out, because there are no circumstances in which that person will turn up to vote.
One of the deterrents against people going along and voting as somebody else in a constituency is that the real person could turn up to vote and that would create a bit of a problem. If people know that large numbers of voting cards have been delivered, sometimes in bulk to halls of residence at universities, for example, those voting cards are very vulnerable to getting into the wrong hands and then being the subject of abuse. This enables people to vote when they should not be able to do so, because they will be voting for a second time.
I am disappointed by the tone that we are hearing from Opposition Members. They do not seem to be concerned about improving the integrity of our electoral system and doing everything we can to eliminate electoral fraud. Surely that should be the starting point for any debate to try to reinforce our democratic institutions, one of which is, of course, the ability of a person to vote in general elections if they are aged over 18, but only once.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I disagree fundamentally with the Bill, for two main reasons. First, it does not focus on enforcing existing laws. We must be cautious about creating more laws for the sake of it. The statute book already provides for people to be prosecuted for voting more than once in a general election, so the effort should be put into ensuring that there are sufficient resources to allow electoral registration offices in our local authorities, which are well known to be suffering as a result of Government cuts, and police forces, which are also suffering from cuts, to enforce the law as it stands.
Secondly, we must consider what the Bill would mean for particular voter groups, and I am thinking especially of students and members of the armed forces. Those who serve in our armed forces are frequently posted away from their homes and families, so their ability to register in both locations is vital to ensure that they do not miss out on their democratic right to choose who represents them in this place and on local councils.
Michael Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible argument, but did he not hear the response to that point from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), which was that students and those serving away from home in the armed forces can choose to register elsewhere and simply vote by post?
Luke Pollard
Given the frequency of snap elections—past and potentially future—I do not think that we should necessarily be arguing for people to plan their residency arrangements around the whims of the Government, whether they collapse or not. Also, people are not able to apply for a postal vote right up until the last moment, and they do not always know whether they will have to be away from their home address for an election. There are many circumstances, whether relating to education or to work, that will mean they need to move between different locations where they are registered, which makes that a more difficult argument. I think that we should be focusing on getting more people registered to vote, rather than making it harder for those people who are already registered to use their vote.
The point I was making about the armed forces is important, because we should go further to ensure that those who serve our country in uniform can use their vote to elect people to this place, and to local government and other offices. We must recognise that deployment patterns mean that they need to move to different locations, away from their homes and families. Indeed, voter registration already recognises that and allows it to be done.
A similar argument can be made for students, especially those studying away from home. The ability to register and to use their vote, whether they are at university in Plymouth or Exeter—wherever they might live—is an important part of ensuring that our young people and others in education do not lose their right to vote.
I think that there is an argument about making it easier for people to register to vote and then to use their vote. Instead of removing the flexibility that comes from having complex lives, often involving unpredictable travel patterns, we should be using this opportunity to talk about how we get more people on the electoral register, how we encourage our 16 and 17-year-olds to register at an early age—even though they are currently denied the right to vote—and how we can move to automatic voter registration, so that when someone registers for council tax, for instance, they are automatically passed on to register online.
This morning I registered to vote in my place in London, because I moved house a couple of months ago. When I filled in the online registration—I did it on my mobile from the Front Bench—I was asked, “Have you moved house recently?” There is progression in making registration easier. In fact, some of the points that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) made in his speech dealt with how people currently register to vote online. Online electoral registration has been an improvement in the system. It has not yet reached what I think should be its final destination, which is more automatic registration so that everyone is registered, regardless of whether they can fill in the details, whether their national insurance number matches Department for Work and Pensions records, or whether they follow things up with a letter along the way, which are the complications that have come from the registration system.
I think that potentially denying people the right to vote based on this type of legislation would be bad for our armed forces and bad for our young people studying in higher education, and for that reason I cannot support the Bill.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). Like him, I cannot support the Bill, because I cannot support anything that makes it more difficult for individuals to be able to vote. If my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) does not mind my saying so, I think it is a little mean-spirited when it comes to students. I remember registering twice because I was never sure whether I was going to be in Durham or back home in Mr Speaker’s constituency of Buckingham.
Anything that adds bureaucracy and regulation, or that makes it harder to incentivise people to vote, is not, in my view, in the best spirit of democracy. I say that as a supporter of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, albeit I do not think we should have automatic registration. Quite frankly, if people cannot take that step to then go and vote—
Business without Debate
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Border Control Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2019.
Green Belt (Protection) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2019.
Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Employment and Workers’ Rights Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (27 April), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 25 January 2019.
Unpaid Work Experience (Prohibition) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Terminal Illness (Provision of Palliative Care and Support for Carers) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Armed Forces (Statute of Limitations) Bill
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
National Living Wage (Extension to Young People) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (6 July), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 25 January 2019.
Emergency Response Drivers (Protections) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
This is ridiculous! It is perfectly good. It is a very good Bill. How dare you? It is a superb Bill, and it has been objected to. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has not even read the Bill—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not have an opportunity to tell the House now what an excellent Bill this is, but he will have an opportunity to do so on 15 March 2019.
Access to Welfare (Terminal Illness Definition) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Civil Aviation (Accessibility) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 8 March 2019.
Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Online Forums Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Abortion Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Pets (Theft) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Health Impacts (Public Sector Duty) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Physician Associates (Regulation) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (26 October), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 25 January 2019.
Leasehold Reform Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Licensing of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (2 February), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 25 January 2019.
Food Insecurity Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Shared Parental Leave and Pay (Extension) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Automatic Electoral Registration (No. 2) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (11 May), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 25 January 2019.
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement and Education) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (3 November 2017), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 25 January 2019.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
House of Lords (Exclusion of Hereditary Peers) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Private Landlords (Registration) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Youth (Services and Provisions) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Violent Crime (Sentences) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Packaging (Extended Producer Responsibility) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Asset Freezing (Compensation) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Legalisation Of Cannabis (Medicinal Purposes) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Local Health Scrutiny Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Tyres (Buses And Coaches) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
National Health Service (Co-Funding and Co-Payment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Local Authorities (Borrowing and Investment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Principal Local Authorities (Grounds for Abolition) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Coastal Path (Definition) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2019.
Wild Animals in Circuses Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
National Health Service Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Home Education (Duty of Local Authorities) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Local Electricity Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Creditworthiness Assessment Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019.
Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thus showing what an enormously wide range of subjects this House deals with on Fridays.
Blood Cancer
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important issue of the NHS long-term plan and blood cancer. In doing so, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) on his appointment to his ministerial position.
We are already nearing December. It is often said that the months seem to fly by, and this is very much the case in terms of the work of the all-party group on blood cancer throughout 2018. As chair of the all-party group, it certainly does not seem like almost a year ago that we launched our first report, which coincided with a Westminster Hall debate on blood cancer care and the NHS. As we come towards the end of the year, we are also approaching the publication of the Government’s long-term plan for the NHS. It is vital that the needs of blood cancer patients are considered and implemented if we are to build on the progress undertaken in recent times for people with blood cancer.
Our all-party group has continued to take evidence from a host of experts and to raise further awareness with health officials and policy makers. Our pursuit of this cause in Parliament is ongoing. September saw Blood Cancer Awareness Month. To mark that occasion it was my pleasure to host Bloodwise, as it invited MPs to meet members of their successful and ever growing patient ambassador programme. Speaking with people such as patient ambassadors really helps to put cancer into a human context. It is important to highlight the fact that some 40,000 people are diagnosed with blood cancer in the UK each year, but listening to just one or perhaps a handful of people who are either living with or have been treated successfully for blood cancer is a powerful reminder that behind every statistic are individual patients, with their own story to tell.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I add my praise for the work that the hon. Gentleman has been doing with the all-party group. When it comes to patients who need a transplant, around 60% of patients who are white will get the best possible match, but if someone comes from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background, that drops to 20%. Does he agree that we need to do much more work to improve this dreadful situation?
Henry Smith
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I pay tribute to him for his contribution to this debate and for raising this matter in this place just yesterday. I absolutely endorse what he says about the importance of transplantation.
Last week, the APPG held its latest meeting on the timely topic of ensuring that patients have access to the best drugs and treatments, ahead of the publication of the NHS plan. In recent months, there have been some significant decisions regarding treatments for blood cancer on the NHS. In September, CAR—chimeric antigen receptor—T-cell therapy was approved for entry into the cancer drugs fund by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and NHS England to treat children and young people with relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. CAR-T therapy is a new type of therapy that modifies a person’s infection-fighting T cells to better spot and kill cancer cells. It could offer people with certain hard-to-treat blood cancers the chance for long-term survival, or even a cure.
I was pleased to question my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions about CAR-T therapy following the NHS England announcement. I continue the call I made that day for the Government to ensure that a focus on blood cancer awareness, diagnosis and prevention will continue into the future. With that in mind, will the Minister update the House on when people with blood cancer are likely to benefit from CAR-T treatment and on whether the health system is ready for this type of personalised medicine?
Additionally, NHS England changed its mind recently and allowed ibrutinib to be used for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia after three years’ remission. The development of new drugs is ongoing. Bloodwise estimates that over one third of all indications for which drugs are funded on the cancer drugs fund are for blood cancer, which highlights not only the challenges we face, but the potential to help.
In January, the APPG launched its inaugural report, “The ‘Hidden’ Cancer—The need to improve blood cancer care.” Key to this is the word “hidden”. Blood cancer is known as the hidden cancer because although patients may indeed be receiving or waiting to start treatment, they may not be displaying any obvious or visible signs of ill health.
I am careful to try to refer to patients and their support networks, especially in this context, as the impact of diagnosis on a patient’s family must also be considered, especially when children are involved. This is particularly the case for patients on so-called watch and wait. That is typically an option only for people with few or no worrying symptoms, whose quality of life and prognosis will not be affected by delaying treatment, and it is recommended for those with blood cancers or related conditions that are stable or slow-growing. However, if someone has been told that they have cancer and, at the same time, they know that they will literally watch and wait to see when they are in a position to begin treatment, it is understandably disconcerting, to say the least. Patients on watch and wait told the APPG inquiry that specific emotional support was required to help them to come to terms with what was happening. Approximately 27,000 people with blood cancer are currently on watch and wait in the UK. To put this in context, that is 13% of those living with blood cancer.
Turning to mental health, anyone with experience of living with cancer or supporting a friend or family member who has done so will know of the dedication of NHS staff and health workers in seeking to do all that they can to provide support. However, it is vital that these staff are given the tools to ensure that patients are fully equipped mentally through the psychological support that they receive. Our APPG report recommended:
“Patients should have access to the full range of emotional and psychological support services throughout their treatment, for themselves and their families”.
The Government have put mental health on a par with physical health. As such, I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurances that blood cancer patients will receive the psychological support that they need after diagnosis, during treatment and after it has been completed.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) again on his Adjournment debate yesterday on psychological support after cancer treatment. By working together on a cross-party basis, it has become powerfully apparent to me that we can make a significant difference. Indeed, I have mentioned that only last week, the blood cancer APPG held its latest meeting on access to drugs and treatments for patients. We were fortunate to be joined by MPs, charity representatives and, of course, patients, one of whom said something that has remained in my mind. She said that patients
“don’t know if they’re living or dying”.
That highlights succinctly and powerfully the importance of this work and the importance of patients, politicians, cancer charities, the Department of Health and Social Care and the wider national health service in ensuring that patients are supported as well as treated.
One of the most striking passages of our APPG report referred to the long-term nature of blood cancer, and how it is different from solid tumour cancers. Respondents to our inquiry found that the term “living beyond” blood cancer was irrelevant. They will probably never live without blood cancer—it will remain part of their life—and very few of those patients have access to the recovery package. Indeed, one respondent even said that they did not know what the recovery package was, which is a point of concern. The recovery package assists patients after their cancer treatment has ended so that they can seek to return to their normal life.
I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) recently reiterated that
“the recovery package is being commissioned and delivered in full or in part by many Clinical Commissioning Groups and providers across England”.
He continued:
“NHS England’s aim is to accelerate the process to ensure full implementation by 2020 so the package will be available to all cancer patients across the country regardless of location.”
He also stated that NHS England was
“building up a picture of current provision to help target future work to support rollout.”
I should be grateful for clarification from the Minister for Health on how support for blood cancer patients is included in this analysis.
Turning to data collection, the inclusion of blood cancer in a range of data collection initiatives will help policy makers to gain a greater understanding of the condition and how patients can be supported. For example, clinical commissioning groups and cancer alliances do not group blood cancer into a single disease area, unlike the national cancer patient experience survey, which means that blood cancer currently receives less attention and therefore fewer resources. The inclusion of blood cancer in the cancer dashboard, which only covers breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancers, would be a step forward for patients.
Earlier this year, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, said in a written answer:
“A second iteration of the dashboard is being considered by the National Cancer Transformation Board with a wider ambition to include rarer cancers and cancers with a lower incidence, such as blood cancers, as the dashboard develops.”
May I ask when we may expect such a development to come into effect?
GP surgeries are a vital part of the NHS. Like all MPs, I receive correspondence from my constituents on the subject of access to GPs. Indeed, in the NHS plan, we need enhanced support for doctors and their capacity to see patients every day, both in Crawley and up and down the country. While the A&E in Crawley Hospital was closed under the previous Government, Crawley Hospital urgent care centre is now open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I urge the Minister to ensure that hospital services continue to come back to sites such as Crawley Hospital, while at the same time ensuring that the resources are in place to enable our constituents to access their GP, not on the other side of the town or county, but in their own local area.
GPs need more assistance to detect and flag up blood cancer. A GP will see, on average, eight cases of cancer per year, only one of which will be blood cancer. The number of GP visits needed before a cancer diagnosis is significantly higher for blood cancer patients than for people with other forms of cancer. Someone with cancer will of course want to be diagnosed the first time they see their GP with symptoms, but one in six blood cancer patients needed to visit their GP three, four or even more times before diagnosis. Only one in 42 breast cancer patients required such regular visits to be diagnosed with their condition.
In the wider debate, the numbers and the statistics are important. Not far shy of a quarter of a million people are living with blood cancer in the UK, and one in 19 people will develop blood cancer at some point in their lives. In Crawley there were fewer incidents of blood cancer than either breast or prostate cancer, but there were more blood cancer deaths than from either of those other forms of cancer. The challenges are immense. Blood cancer is the UK’s fifth most common cancer, and the third biggest cancer killer. However, there are reasons to be positive. Over a period of almost four decades, from 1971-72 to 2010-11, 10-year survival rates for leukaemia, one of the most common groups of blood cancer, increased from 7% to 46%. Among children, the figure has trebled to 81%.
In all those figures are the individuals who live with blood cancer, who care for family members who are patients, or who are advocates on behalf of those affected by the condition. My constituent Bill Bedford was diagnosed with myeloma in September 2016. He has undergone a stem cell transplant operation and is now fortunately in remission. Bill is one of many patients who are seeking to give something back. He has undertaken a 310-mile cycle ride, from London to Paris, to raise funds for Myeloma UK. Seven-year-old Ebonie Musselwhite, also from Crawley, was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia two years ago. About 650 people are diagnosed with ALL each year in this country, half of them children. Crawley Fire Station and Crawley Lawn Tennis Club are just two of the local organisations that have held fundraising events to help contribute to the cost of support for Ebonie. Angus Rowland, a young man living just outside Crawley, was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia in 2010. Sadly, he died in May 2011, just 14 and a half years old. The Angus Rowland Forget-Me-Not Walk and Run took place in October, just outside Crawley, to raise funds for Bloodwise in Angus’s name.
I said at the APPG report launch that we could not just stand there and be pleased with what we had published in our first report. Rather, it must form the basis of a continued programme of work to effect lasting change. To people living with blood cancer right now, who may be on watch and wait, who may be undergoing treatment, or who may have only just been diagnosed, 1 say this: there are people in Parliament who are on your side, and we will stand up for you. We want to help, and we will keep the pressure on the Government and the NHS. To those who may have undergone treatment, who may be having treatment now, or who simply want to ensure greater support for blood cancer patients, my message is simple: contact your local MP and ask him or her to contact the Department for Health and Social Care, NHS England and local clinical commissioning groups. Let us continue to raise awareness, so that blood cancer is no longer the hidden cancer.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am delighted to welcome back to the Dispatch Box the Minister, Mr Stephen Hammond.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
It is a great pleasure to be here.
Blood cancer is the third biggest cancer killer in the UK and nearly 250,000 people are living with it today. Although cancer is relatively rare in younger people, blood cancers are the most common cancer in under-30s, so this is an important debate, despite the fact that the Chamber is not packed.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing the debate and thank him for his contribution as chair of the all-party parliamentary group. As he rightly said, this is cross-party, so I also congratulate the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who I understand is the deputy chairman and had an Adjournment debate yesterday.
Cancer is a Government priority. Survival rates have improved since 2010. About 7,000 people are today alive who would not be if mortality rates had remained at those levels. This must continue. We are transforming cancer services across England and taking an “all cancer” approach to improvements. We want our cancer services to be the best in the world. We want all cancer patients to have access to the treatment and the care that will allow for the best possible chance of a successful clinical outcome.
This is really important. That is why the Prime Minister last month announced a package of measures that would see 75% of all cancers detected at an early stage by 2028. Currently, just half of all cases are detected at an early stage. The new 75% target applies to all cancers, not just the 10 currently in the public health outcomes framework early diagnosis metric. We are keen to work with charities representing sufferers of cancers not currently included in that metric on how best to measure progress towards the 75% target.
We are reforming screening, and investing in technology and research to improve diagnosis and care. That will form part of the long-term plan for the NHS and forms part of how we will achieve our ambition of seeing 55,000 more people surviving cancer for five years in England after 2028.
In December 2016, the Government invested £200 million to encourage earlier diagnosis, improve the care for those living with cancer and ensure that cancer patients get the right care for them. Early diagnosis of blood cancers can sometimes be difficult, as my hon. Friend said. Symptoms can be vague and often misdiagnosed, delaying treatment.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is essentially why the Government put that money in—to ensure that earlier diagnosis could be enabled. He makes a valid point. It is clear that sometimes patients see GPs multiple times before getting that referral. The money put in to ensure that earlier diagnosis will hopefully ensure that that referral happens more quickly.
In addition to helpful earlier National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, NHS England has been testing innovative ways of diagnosing cancer earlier, with sites piloting multidisciplinary diagnostic centres for patients with vague or non-specific symptoms, such as those common in blood cancers. In her announcement, the Prime Minister pledged to roll out these rapid diagnosis centres nationally to offer all patients a range of tests on the same day with rapid access to results.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley mentioned CAR-T cell therapy. He will know that earlier diagnosis must mean earlier treatment and there have been some exciting developments in that area for people under 25 with leukaemia. Last week, NICE recommended the pioneering cancer treatment CAR-T cell therapy for young people with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.
My hon. Friend asked about what is happening and timescales. Through the Cancer Drugs Fund, Kymriah will now be offered to people under the age of 25 who have not responded to current treatment or who have relapsed from stem cell transplants. That marks a new generation of personalised medicine with the potential to transform cancer patient care worldwide. As he knows, the work is in its early stages. We know that more personalised treatments will be game changers in cancer treatment.
My hon. Friend also talked about people who have to live with and beyond cancer. More than 300,000 people are diagnosed every year. Innovations in treatment mean that more people look forward to a life after cancer and, as survival improves, we must ensure that patients enjoy as good a quality of life as possible after treatment. We are rolling out the recovery package to every cancer patient by 2020, including of course those with blood cancer. This is a set of interventions designed to help patients and clinicians to assess a patient’s physical and emotional needs at appropriate points on the journey of recovery. It goes from diagnosis at the beginning to recovery at the end. For blood cancer patients, the recovery plan will be personalised to take account of the unique characteristics of blood cancer, which can be very different from those caused by a solid tumour, as my hon. Friend, the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, rightly recognised.
My hon. Friend asked for some comments on psychological support, which was the basis of the Adjournment debate yesterday. Many patients with a chronic blood cancer diagnosis will sadly never be cured. They will be on a regime of watch and wait, often over many years, to see if the cancer has progressed to a point where treatment needs to take place. This takes a huge psychological toll on the patient and their family. The recovery package therefore takes a holistic approach and also considers mental health needs. When patients require additional psychological support, they must have access to appropriate mental health services. Mental health is a priority for the Government, and last year we announced an additional £1.3 billion to expand the NHS mental health workforce, which will allow an extra 1 million patients to be treated by 2020-21. That will help to ensure that cancer patients can be referred promptly to any psychological support they need as part of their recovery package.
My hon. Friend mentioned including blood cancer in the cancer dashboard. Public Health England is working with NHS England on the next phase of the dashboard development, and this will be informed by the needs of key stakeholders and cancer charities. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), has expressed his frustration that the dashboard is limited to the top four cancers and wants to see it expanded. NHS England and Public Health England have had clear direction from him on this, and he and the Department will be watching this with interest. I know that he will want to speak to my hon. Friend and to the all-party parliamentary group on that matter.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley will be reassured to hear that the Government are absolutely committed to transforming services for all cancer patients, including blood cancer patients. More people are being referred and diagnosed than ever before, and thanks to innovative treatments, more of them will survive their cancers. The cancer strategy and the progress that the Government have made in implementing its 96 recommendations provide the ideal launch pad for the long-term plan. With cancer as one of its key components over the next decade, it will enable the NHS to ensure that every cancer patient gets the emotional, psychological and physical support that they need to live well with, and beyond, cancer.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingent Liability
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)
I am today laying a departmental minute to advise that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has received approval from Her Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) to recognise a revised contingent liability associated with an Apache integrated operational support contract amendment.
The departmental minute describes the revised contingent liability that the MOD will hold as a result of signing a contract amendment to the Apache integrated operational support contract. This amendment extends the support to the Apache helicopter fleet from 2019 until 2024 and covers the third and final pricing period for the contract. Due to the Apache AH-64E coming into service in 2024 and the need to manage obsolescence issues on the current Mk1 helicopter to ensure a smooth transition for pilots and engineers, the out of service date for the Apache Mk1 has been advanced to 2024. This amendment revises the support contract accordingly.
The maximum contingent liability against the MOD for damage at Government premises caused by contractor’s staff is estimated at £18,750,000 and the MOD has an additional exposure value of £2,000,000 for use of the indemnity condition 15, ammunition and explosives.
The contingent liability will remain for the duration of the contract to 2024.
Further contingent liabilities for intellectual property rights (IPR) in software, third party IPR, aircraft flight and taxiing, aviation products, and protection against excessive profit and loss fall within MOD and Defence Equipment & Support delegations.
[HCWS1107]
Service Complaints Ombudsman: Annual Report
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The Ministry of Defence (MOD)’s formal response to the service complaints ombudsman’s (SCO) annual report for 2017 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system has today been placed in the Library of the House.
The ombudsman’s report commented on the second year of operation of the new service complaints system, which was implemented on 1 January 2016, and the work of her office in 2017. The response sets out MOD’s comments and approach to each of the ombudsman’s new recommendations.
The MOD values the strong independent oversight that the ombudsman brings to the new service complaints process, and remains committed to having a system in which our personnel can have confidence.
[HCWS1105]
Branded Medicines Pricing
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health (Lords) (Lord O'Shaughnessy) has made the following written statement:
I am pleased to inform Parliament that agreement has been reached on a heads of agreement for a new voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access. The voluntary scheme is an agreement between the Department of Health and Social Care, on behalf of the four UK Governments, and the pharmaceutical industry, represented by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI).
This is an important milestone in the ongoing negotiations. If all proposals in the heads of agreement are agreed in a full scheme document, then the new voluntary scheme will operate for five years starting from 1 January 2019. The current voluntary scheme, the 2014 Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, will end on 31 December 2018.
The new voluntary scheme is expected to benefit patients, the NHS and the life sciences industry through delivery of its overarching objectives of improving patient access to medicines, innovation and affordability. If final agreement is reached on the proposals set out in the heads of agreement, patients will benefit from faster adoption of clinically and cost-effective medicines so they have access to the best available treatment. The deal is expected to deliver a benefit of £930 million next year, to be reinvested into the NHS. The proposals also demonstrate the Government’s commitment to innovation through measures to improve uptake of transformative new medicines, to support small businesses through improved exemptions from the cost control mechanism and targeted case management of commercial discussions with NHS England, and to provide greater commercial flexibility for companies that offer the best value new medicines. In addition, the new voluntary scheme would deliver better value for the NHS by ensuring the branded medicines spend remains within affordable limits through an overall cap on growth on NHS branded medicines sales.
Taken together, the new voluntary scheme is expected to support the Government’s commitment to ensuring the UK remains an attractive hub for our world-leading life sciences sector, a central part of the Government’s industrial strategy.
A summary of the heads of agreement has been placed in the Library. Further information will be provided as the negotiations progress.
[HCWS1108]
Machinery of Government: Government Equalities Office
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
This written statement confirms that the Government Equalities Office (GEO) will transfer to the Cabinet Office from 1 April 2019.
This machinery of government change will provide a permanent home for the GEO, in line with a key recommendation from the Women and Equalities Select Committee in its report earlier this year.
It will enable the GEO to better co-ordinate work across Government, including with the Race Disparity Unit, the Office for Disability Issues, and others, to drive real and meaningful progress on the equalities agenda.
[HCWS1109]
Road worthiness
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I wish to inform the House that the Government are today introducing changes to formal guidance issued to the operators of heavy vehicles.
The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) is publishing a revised guide to maintaining roadworthiness, which is the formal guidance for commercial operators and drivers on how to make sure their vehicles are safe to drive.
It includes guidance that tyres over 10 years old should not be used on heavy vehicles except in specific, limited circumstances. These changes reinforce guidance previously issued to bus and coach operators and extend it to include goods vehicles.
The Government take road safety seriously and in 2013 the Department for Transport issued guidance about the use of older tyres on buses and coaches. This precautionary guidance encouraged operators to remove any tyre aged 10 years or more from the front, steering axle, of their vehicles. Since that time, the DVSA has been monitoring the age of tyres fitted during annual roadworthiness inspections. Compliance has been good.
I reported to the House on 1 March 2018 that the Department for Transport was undertaking research to understand better the effect of age on a tyre’s integrity. I am pleased to report that this research is proceeding well and that I have made additional funds available to extend the number of tyre samples that are being analysed. The report will be available in spring 2019.
The DVSA’s priority is to protect everyone from unsafe drivers and vehicles. It will start conducting follow-up investigations whenever it finds a vehicle operator with a tyre more than 10 years old on its bus, coach, lorry or trailer. If the operator cannot provide an adequate explanation for using an old tyre, or their tyre management systems are not good enough, the DVSA will consider referring them to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.
The revision to the guide to maintaining roadworthiness also includes information to help drivers of high vehicles to avoid bridge strikes. Bridge strikes cause significant disruption for the rail network and are often caused by drivers failing to appreciate the height of their vehicle.
The revision provides further guidance for drivers to remind them to record the height of their vehicle during their daily walk around checks. By improving guidance in this area, the DVSA aims to see a reduction in disruption to travellers.
The Government and the DVSA will continue their commitment to keep Britain’s roads amongst the safest in the world by enforcing legislation, as well as working with industry to provide guidance on vehicle and driver safety.
[HCWS1106]
Benefit and Pension Uprating
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
I am pleased to announce the proposed social security benefit and pension rates for 2019-20.I have attached the table of rates to this statement and I will place a copy of the proposed benefit and pension rates 2019-20 in the Library of the House. The annual uprating of benefits will take place for state pensions and most other benefits in the first full week of the tax year. In 2019, this will be the week beginning 8 April. A corresponding provision will be made in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government will lay its own statutory instruments to make these increases to carer’s allowance in Scotland.
The annual uprating process takes into account a variety of measures:
The basic and new state pension will be increased by the Government’s “triple lock” commitment, meaning that they will be uprated in line with the highest of prices (CPI), earnings or 2.5%. Consequently, they will be uprated by 2.6% (the May-July average weekly earnings figure).
The legislative requirement for the pension credit standard minimum guarantee is that it is increased at least in line with earnings. This year the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by £4.25 a week for a single person (and £6.45 for a couple). The pension credit savings credit maximum amount will be increased in line with prices.
Benefits linked to the additional costs of disability, and for carers, are increased by the annual rise in prices (2.4%). A number of other elements—including non-dependant deductions—will also be uprated in line with prices.
The majority of working-age benefits have been frozen at their 2015-16 levels for four years under the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.
In line with the announcement in the autumn Budget, universal credit work allowances will be increased by £1,000 from April 2019. This increase will take effect after the rates are increased by prices.
The list of proposed benefit and pension rates also includes a change to the carer’s allowance earnings rule, which will be increased for 2019-20 from £120 to £123 a week.
The attachment can be viewed online at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-11-23/HCWS1104/.
[HCWS1104]
Grand Committee
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]
Friday 23rd November 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF) - (21 Nov 2018)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 1: Abolition of the system of by-elections for hereditary peers
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, in rising to question the proposal that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, I take the opportunity to put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. The noble Lord is, of course, a very senior and distinguished member of the Labour Party and doubtless attended the party conference in Liverpool, I think it was, earlier this year where among the policies decided upon, as I understand it, was an early general election. If that happens this Bill would sink without trace, so presumably the noble Lord does not support the idea of an early general election. Will he clarify that for us?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, this Private Member’s Bill being committed to a Grand Committee is in the nature of an experiment. It is clearly a hugely successful one. This must be a record attendance at a Grand Committee. The usual channels may consider this an important precedent that might be useful on other occasions.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has mentioned elections because what makes this Bill particularly important is an impending parliamentary by-election which will take place on Wednesday when we will have a new Member of the House of Lords elected by 16 people. As the noble Lord knows, the electorate is 31 people, so the mathematicians will be able to work out that 16 votes will be enough to get someone elected. In most parliamentary by-elections some 20,000 votes are needed for a new Member of Parliament to arrive. I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that Clause 1 needs to stand part. If it does not, 50% of the Bill will be gone. It is a two-clause Bill that has so far attracted I think 75 amendments. I urge the noble Lord to let the matter go so we move on to the detailed discussion of Clause 2.
Lord Trefgarne
Against that reply, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is not in favour of an early general election, and nor am I.
The Earl of Caithness
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to a number of other amendments as shown on Marshalled List.
There are three or four quite important amendments that we need to discuss on this clause. The first amendment I draw to your Lordships’ attention is Amendment 39. It would affect the Short Title of the Bill. I propose that the words “Abolition of By-Elections” are left out. The reason for that is that the Bill gets rid of hereditary Peers. It starts by getting rid of the by-elections and, in due course, as hereditary Peers die off, there will soon be no hereditary Peers left in the House of Lords. The Bill should have the title “House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill” because there will not be another Bill to get rid of the hereditary Peers if this Bill proceeds and we wither on the vine.
The second amendment to which I draw your Lordships’ attention is Amendment 42, which states that Section 1 should not come into force until,
“the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent review of the benefits that hereditary Peers bring to Parliament”.
One of those important benefits is that we are not appointed by the Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, accepted my amendment that acknowledges that the Bill is designed to produce a purely appointed Chamber, on the whim of the Prime Minister’s patronage. We will come on to patronage a bit more in due course, because it is a matter that my noble friend Lord Young—then Sir George Young—did not like when the other Bill went through the Commons in 1999.
Amendment 43 makes another condition—that there ought to be a vote of excepted hereditary Peers before the Bill becomes an Act. I tabled that amendment because the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is arbitrarily unpicking an agreement we had signed up to that was binding in honour until stage 2 came along; I wish that stage 2 had already happened. The people who will suffer from this are the hereditary Peers, so it seemed only sensible that a vote should be taken among them on whether they were happy that the agreement should be broken.
Another amendment that I wish to talk to briefly is Amendment 58B, which concerns the size of the House. We will talk about that a bit more when we come to the amendments on the Burns report, but this amendment states that the Bill should not become an Act until,
“steps have been taken to ensure that the membership of the House … does not exceed 600 in, or after, the year 2030”.
That is about the same time as the Burns report proposed that that figure should come about, but it would be a big step towards stage 2. When the House is limited at 600, that should be the time when the hereditary Peers’ by-elections should cease. I beg to move.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak only once, because what I have to say applies to the whole Committee. Some noble Lords were at what I think of as the Norton-Cormack meeting the other day, which Bernard Jenkin from the House of Commons addressed by saying that if the Bill were passed he would do his utmost to get it through the House of Commons. That is important for your Lordships to note, because often Bills from this House do not go smoothly through the House of Commons.
I am amazed at the tactics used on the Bill. They are self-destructive and against the interests of the hereditary Peers in this House. The only Labour leader I ever regarded as a friend was the late John Smith, who of course sadly never became Prime Minister. He once said to me that the worst job he had was, as he put it, with the queue of supplicants down the Corridor seeking to help the Labour Party by taking a seat in the House of Lords.
There will be a change of government one day—that happens in democracies—and the Labour Party will come into power. At the moment, it has 186 Peers including four hereditaries, and our side of the Chamber has 248 Peers including 47 hereditaries. Any Labour leader who wanted, first, to strike a radical pose, and secondly, to get himself out of a lot of people supplicating for membership of this House, could pass a simple Act that would have enormous popularity in the country: the abolition of the legislative rights of hereditary Peers. That would not take the title away, but it would take away the right to sit in the House of Lords. That would quickly change the arithmetic to there being just 201 Conservatives and 182 Labour Peers. That would put us well on the way to what is not an illegitimate aim for the governing party of the day; that is, to have slightly more seats than the principal opposition party of the day.
The late Jim Callaghan was fond of talking about turkeys voting for Christmas. I wonder whether the hereditary Peers, who seem to be the only ones backing this move, have actually thought it through. What is principally being discussed, particularly on the ultra left of the Labour Party, is the idea that perhaps they should go for abolishing the House of Lords. However, there are now two sorts of people on the ultra left of the Labour Party. There is the Jeremy Corbyn faction which believes in principle above everything else, but probably more important is the John McDonnell faction. John McDonnell believes in achieving his aims progressively. I think that the John McDonnell faction is quite happily in favour of this Bill being stalled in this place because it gives him a good cause for putting into the manifesto the abolition of the legislative rights of hereditary Peers.
I have said that I will speak only once, but my overall conclusion is that hereditary Peers are shooting themselves very firmly in their own feet.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, those are very interesting words and most certainly worth reflecting on. I thank the noble Lord. I rise to speak to Amendment 58D, tabled in my name. It concerns the Prime Minister’s prerogative. In my Peers in Schools programme visits, we inevitably and rightly discuss the composition of the House and the routes of entry. Three issues are raised consistently by the pupils: obviously the hereditaries, the Bishops and the Prime Minister’s prerogative. In respect of the prerogative, it seems that the relevant set textbook makes the point that there is no other country in the developed democratic world where one person has so much power over the membership of the legislature. Indeed, as the discussion generally continues, the view seems to develop in all the classes that I can recall that the Prime Minister’s prerogative is by far the largest constitutional issue of the three.
This House considered the matter recently as part of the annual Burns committee initiative, and last December more than 90 Members spoke. As we will all well recall, the overwhelming mood was one of great support for the Burns committee, and accordingly of curbing the Prime Minister’s prerogative. Indeed, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the other place reported on 19 November on the matter. In a powerful analysis of the Prime Minister’s prerogative, it concluded at paragraph 35 of its report:
“It is important that the Prime Minister commits to the proposed cap and to limiting appointments in line with the proposed appointment formula”.
There are 791 Members of the House, of whom 178 do not owe their membership to a Prime Minister. That number is comprised of 26 bishops, 89 hereditaries and 63 Members who have come in through the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Some 613 Peers have therefore been appointed under the prerogative power, which is around 80%. I strongly believe that this dynamic represents a constitutional risk in that the prerogative is so concentrated in one person. That risk should be managed, and this Bill clearly represents a route whereby one might attempt that. However, as currently drafted, the Bill would increase the risk over time by removing half of the non-prime ministerially appointed buffer, although other dynamics are also in play to exacerbate matters.
I very much admire HOLAC. Its chairmen have crafted a first-class institution. It is, however, being somewhat smothered. In its first period under Labour Administrations between 2001 and 2010, 52 Peers were appointed in just over 10 years. That is an average of pretty well exactly five per year. In its current period under Conservative-led Administrations there have been 15 appointments, including three last June. That is an average of just under 1.8 per year. Actuarially, one would need three to four a year to maintain the current number of 63 HOLAC Peers. Accordingly, the HOLAC part of the buffer that is not appointed by the Prime Minister is shrinking. As I said, this Bill would see other parts of the buffer shrink further.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I obviously agree with other noble Lords that we really need full reform of the House of Lords, but that is not on offer. That we cannot have full reform of the House of Lords is no reason to say that we cannot make progress on more limited reform. In examining this group of amendments, I thought I would look at the dictionary definition of “amendment”, which says that an amendment is:
“A minor change or addition designed to improve a text or a piece of legislation”.
I respectfully suggest that no amendment in this group remotely fits that dictionary definition of what an amendment is. The amendments in this group do not seek to be minor or to improve the text in any way. They seek simply to delay discussion on perhaps more important matters, to filibuster this debate and to prevent any progress on the legitimate issue. That is wholly wrong and brings the House into disrepute when we are debating things to prevent Members in the Commons voting on issues such as this. We should proceed with the Bill to allow them to have their say on it.
With great respect, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is wrong to suggest that if the Bill was approved it would mean that we simply ended up with a wholly appointed House on the whim of a Prime Minister. He ignores the very important role of the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission, which does not appoint people on the whim of the Prime Minister. I also respectfully suggest that other noble Lords are at present appointed on what might be called the whim of party leaders, but they are at least elected party leaders who have faced the electorate. To suggest that it is somehow more legitimate to have people in this place because of the hereditary position is wholly wrong. They, of course, are here only on the basis of the whim of a previous monarch, perhaps some centuries ago, whom that monarch might have married, and then their eldest son, the eldest son’s son, et cetera. That is no basis whatever for any sort of legislature deciding on the laws of the land in the 21st century.
For those reasons, all these amendments should be rejected so that we can get on to more serious debates. We should have Report shortly in the House of Lords and allow the House of Commons to consider the Bill.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly address just two of the points that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made objecting to the Bill. The first objection is on the basis that the Bill would end the one part of the existing process for the creation of new Members that is democratic because it depends on election rather than appointment. I can perfectly well understand, though I profoundly disagree with, those who argue for an elected House rather than an appointed House. What I fail utterly to understand is why it should be considered less objectionable—indeed, considered a partial answer to those opposed to an appointed House—that 92 of its Members and those who currently elect their successors come from a privileged class of hereditary Peers who, alone, are candidates for election. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and, indeed, I in the past, have called the “assisted places scheme”. It is nonsense. It is hardly going to persuade those in favour of democracy that: “Ah, we meet that test now; we wouldn’t if this Bill went through”.
The second point is in relation to Amendment 58B: the suggestion that we wait until we are down to 600 before we implement the Bill. Under the Burns proposals, which are the route by which we hope to reduce the House to 600, those who leave by death or retirement are to be replaced—initially one for two, later one for one—by new members of the same party, so if hereditary elections remain, Tory slots in future would sometimes inevitably have to be filled by hereditaries wherever there is a gap. That would reduce the number of new Members whom the party leader might otherwise prefer to be in the House. If this Bill passes, therefore, and the Burns scheme succeeds in reducing us to 600, the Tories will not lose in numbers but will gain in the choice of who fills the available slots. If the Bill fails, hereditaries will form an ever-larger part of the Tory group. Is that really what they want?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
There is only one point I want to raise, other than to say that of course we want a general election. Actually there are two issues. One, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has just mentioned, is the importance of refreshing this House not only with those who happen to be sons of people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, were appointed by a monarch or a Prime Minister. It will be important to refresh the House so that it is not just men who are appointed. That will certainly be the case for the Conservative Party which, otherwise, will end up very male-dominated.
My other point, from the point of view of the Labour Party, is on an issue that has been raised and which I have responded to before about the binding commitment. The binding commitment was, of course, not binding in law; it was binding until it was possible to change the composition of the House. I remind the noble Lord that that commitment was made in 1997. After we lost office, his party were in government in coalition from 2010 to 2015 and did not manage to bring in a change to the House, they were then not in coalition and did not do it, and they are now effectively in coalition again and are not doing it. The lack of commitment to changing the House means that a commitment made much earlier no longer has the standing that it had at the time.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I am grateful to a number of noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the Bill, and I do not want to add to the points that they made. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, shared a useful piece of information about the views of important people in the Commons in relation to this legislation. It gives me great heart if I am able to think that, should this House pass the Bill, as I very much hope it will, it would be a huge example to almost any other institution of an institution reforming itself in a sensible way.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for that, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who mentioned the need for speed. These by-elections will take place with increasing frequency; that is the inevitable consequence of age. We are talking about people who were identified as the 90 in 1999. There have been 44 by-elections since then—or 44 new Members as a result of by-elections; some have been for two new Peers—but inevitably they will come with greater frequency. There are two in the pipeline. The need to get this Bill through is all the more urgent if we are not to be subject to, it seems to me, the reasonable accusation of looking completely ridiculous with some of these by-elections. The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, about the effect that an increasing proportion of the membership of the House being hereditary Peers will have on different parties is powerful.
I do not disagree at all with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the need for a cap on the size of the House. I think very strongly that we should reduce the number of people here. But of course, if nothing is done specifically about the hereditary Peers—this is the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown—it will be significantly harder to reduce the size of the House if there are 92 people to whom “two out, one in” does not apply. The stats in the second, most recent report of the Burns committee are quite clear. They are small numbers so one should not draw huge lessons from them, but they make it pretty plain that it is difficult to reduce the size of the House if hereditary Peers are being replaced one-for-one, whereas everyone else is being replaced on the basis of one in for every two out.
This is a big group of amendments and I urge the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, not to press them further, either here or on Report, as they would have the cumulative effect of delaying the Bill’s implementation. I will be kind to him today and say that he is not trying to wreck the Bill with these amendments—though it was hard for me to say that—but they would certainly significantly delay it. One or two of them are, frankly, close to being silly, such as the idea of reviews of the work of both Houses. But let us leave it at that, and I appeal to him not to press them further either here or on Report.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, this has been a useful discussion. I would only say to my noble friend Lord Balfe that I think the McDonnell wing that he mentioned will put into the manifesto exactly what he says, whether this Bill goes through Parliament or not. It was in fact in the 1997 manifesto that all hereditary Peers should go. It is something that I agree with, because I think that all hereditary Peers, and all life Peers, ought to go. That is what I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard: whatever the composition of a House that is not 100% elected, it is easily criticised. That is why I believe that 100% election is much the best way forward for a second Chamber in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, did not answer me at all on Amendment 39. I wonder whether he might give that some thought between now and the next stage, because it would not delay the Bill at all; it would merely clarify exactly what the Bill does, which is to abolish hereditary Peers. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
“(3) Section 1 comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made until the Secretary of State has published a report outlining progress made towards the implementation of the recommendations in paragraphs 18, 19, 29, 35, 39, 41, 44, 45, 48-51, 53, 55, 66, 70, 74, 77, 81, 82, 96 and 97 of the Burns Report.(5) In this section, the “Burns Report” means the Report from the Lord Speaker’s committee on the Size of the House of Lords, published on 31 October 2017.(6) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have one simple thought about this. It is the one expressed by my noble friend Lord Caithness a little while ago. He, I and others object to the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, because it breaches the undertaking given in 1999. The context of that Bill was the total abolition of the hereditary peerage. At some point during its progress—the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was, I believe, involved in the discussions that went on behind the scenes; I most certainly was not—all hereditary Peers were going to be removed from the House of Lords. A deal was done involving, principally, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde but others as well. An undertaking was given “binding in honour” those who gave their assent to it. Those were the words of the then Lord Chancellor, repeated in the House and, I believe, elsewhere. It is an undertaking that I hope, on reflection, all political parties will continue to be bound by.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I want to comment on the percentage of hereditary Peers, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, raised on a previous amendment. The best date the Library could give me figures for was 11 January 2000, just after the 1999 Bill went through, when the hereditaries comprised 13.89% of the House. As of March—I have not updated the figures since then—we comprised 11.66% of the House. When the House reaches a total of 600 Peers we would comprise only 15.33%. The percentage has gone down since 2000. That percentage will go up a bit, but I am very happy to discuss that point so that we keep the hereditaries at the same figure they are now.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, this group of amendments in various ways responds to the Burns report, which most of us welcome. They lay down all sorts of preconditions that this Bill cannot come into operation until sundry provisions of the Burns report have been implemented. We have been over the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about the “binding commitment” in 1999 so many times. The inference of what he said is that my fingerprints were over that commitment. I can tell him exactly why the concession was made in 1999 that resulted in the difficulties we have had ever since with these by-elections. The Labour Government, with a colossal majority in the Commons, had the simplest possible statement of intent in respect of the House of Lords, which was to end the whole of the hereditary peerage—no ifs, no buts. However, as there was a huge majority of hereditary Peers—and Conservative Peers, although for this argument, that is beside the point—in this House it was plain that the legislation was not going to be admitted by them.
Worse than that, it became increasingly apparent that the rest of the Labour Government’s legislative promises to the electorate would not be able to be enacted because of the colossal amount of obstruction coming from the hereditary Peers at the time. That is the last time I am going to make that speech. It has the merit of being true. My good friend—and friend of many others here—Denis Carter, who was my predecessor as Chief Whip in the House of Lords, advised No. 10 and the Cabinet that there were real dangers to the Labour Government’s whole legislative programme. The settlement of 92 was obtained under duress—that is the only way in which it can sensibly be described. What is absolutely certain is that it was intended to be a short-term arrangement, yet here we are, 19 years later, debating at length—I shall make sure that my speeches are not at length—an end to what was intended to be temporary and is now 19 years old. Can we please not have that discussion ever again? I hope that the proposers of these amendments will agree not to press them further.
Lord Trefgarne
Perhaps it may be in order for me to say one brief sentence. The Government of whom the noble Lord was a distinguished member could have honoured the undertaking by bringing forward their own legislation to reform the House of Lords, which they chose not to do. They had eight or nine years subsequently in which to do that, but did not do a thing about it.
Lord Grocott
I fear that I am in danger of being bored; I do not know about anyone else. A Bill was introduced; it died in wash-up when the Labour Government were voted out of office in 2010. Subsequently, other efforts were made. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, cannot say with a straight face that they have been forever passionate supporters of a fully elected House. The two of them have been here for 100 years put together—full marks for that. If they were totally committed to a fully elected House and if they have been unable to do anything about it in those 100 years other than to keep repeating those barely credible words which are simply a device to delay and prevent enactment of this Bill, all I can say is that they have not been very effective parliamentarians. Please can we hear the end of that and move on.
The Earl of Caithness
“(3) Section 1 comes into force after the period of two months beginning with the first day on which the conditions in subsections (4) and (5) are met.(4) The condition in this subsection is that a House of Lords Appointment Commission, as set out in Schedule (The House of Lords Appointments Commission), is in operation on a statutory basis, with the role of screening, selecting and recommending all persons for appointment to the House of Lords.(5) The condition in this subsection is that a Speakers’ Committee on the House of Lords Appointments Commission, as set out in Schedule (The Speakers’ Committee on the House of Lords Appointments Commission), is in operation on a statutory basis, with the role of scrutinising the work of a House of Lords Appointments Commission set up in accordance with subsection (4).(6) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, we move to an important amendment which would not delay the implementation of the Bill in any way if it were accepted. It touches on a matter that we have briefly discussed: the appointment of life Peers to the House. When the 1999 Bill was debated in the House of Commons there was considerable discussion about patronage. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, then Sir George Young, said that the Bill would see,
“a quango House created by stealth”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/99; col. 1147.]
My noble friend Lord Cormack also criticised the patronage that could happen at that stage and recommended that the hereditary Peers be kept because of the undiluted patronage of the Prime Minister.
Since then, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has said, the House of Lords Appointments Commission has come into being, but it is not statutory. Whatever happens to this Bill, immense power and patronage will be in the hands of one person to appoint life Peers.
The purpose of Amendment 58A and the two other amendments that go with it is to establish a statutory appointments commission. I will not go into detail because noble Lords who have studied the 2012 Bill—which, sadly, fell in the House of Commons because of mishandling at that end—had it all in there. My words are taken from the 2012 Bill, of whom one of the proposers was none other than Sir George Young, so my noble friend the Minister will know the words intimately. I hope that because he designed and approved them, he will have no objection to them coming in.
This would be a good amendment for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to accept. At the moment his Bill is destroying a part of the House. He has described it as a small Bill, but it is like lighting a match and putting it to a fuse that is going to Semtex because there will be substantial alterations to the British constitution as a result. He could go out with this Bill not only having destroyed something but having put something valuable in its place—a statutory appointments commission.
I will not weary your Lordships by taking you through all the points of detail because they were all made by parliamentary draughtsmen seven years ago. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, if I was still in another place and not here, I would ask the person chairing the Committee how this amendment is allowable. The purpose of the Bill is to:
“Amend the House of Lords Act 1999 so as to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary peers”.
It does not go beyond that. However, this amendment goes way beyond that.
As I understand it, because of the crazy procedure in this place, the chair has almost no powers, so perhaps I may ask the Minister, who has been referred to on many occasions by the proposer of this amendment, how on earth these amendments are allowable. It is crazy. Is there no answer?
Lord Rennard
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is right about the nature of this amendment. There is a simple test to compare an amendment as against a filibuster: this is a one-page Bill in total and yet the amendment runs to nine pages. A nine-page amendment to a one-page Bill is not an amendment to make a small change to improve the legislation but an attempt at a filibuster. A definition of a filibuster is:
“A filibuster is a political procedure where one or more members of parliament or congress debate a proposed piece of legislation so as to delay or entirely prevent a decision being made on the proposal”.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Lord is right about filibuster—I like filibusters on occasions. I could put down an amendment within the terms of the House of Lords Act 1999 so as to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary peers and I could filibuster on a perfectly proper amendment which changes a word or whatever. That is allowable. However, as I know the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is a constitutional expert, perhaps he can tell me how these amendments—which are clearly not within the terms of the title of the Bill—are allowable. I must have a word with the Clerk of the Parliaments—I am having a lot of words with him at the moment but I will have another one—to find out why on earth these things are allowed.
Lord Rennard
I ask exactly the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I agree with the point that he is making. There is a strong case for putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a proper statutory basis. That was one of the four proposals in the House of Lords Reform Bill, which became known as the Steel Bill—one of the many sensible proposals—but it was effectively blocked because of a flurry of hundreds of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, tabled the day before that Bill was to be considered in the House of Lords. That is the reason it did not happen or make progress. Those people who prevented the House of Lords Appointments Commission being put on a statutory basis are now suggesting that we need to debate putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis. The text is simply to prevent us making a sensible, modest reform to bring an end to the hereditary by-elections. We need to end those by-elections because if we do not make a contribution from the hereditary element towards a reduction in the size of the House, we will increase the proportion of Members of the House who will be here by virtue of the hereditary position, as opposed to at least being appointed by the Appointments Commission or by elected party leaders.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I respectfully support what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, said. Of course, one cannot translate issues of scope directly into issues of relevance in this House, as opposed to the House of Commons, but it is worth recalling that this is a single-purpose Bill. At the very least—at the kindliest level of criticism—its inclusion as being in order for an entirely separate one-purpose piece of legislation is generous.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I was hoping not to speak in this debate because I wanted to leave early and get a train to Dorset to see my grandchildren, so I am rather irritated to be on my feet. Quite honestly, this is cheating. I know that I am a relatively new Member of the House, particularly compared to the noble Lords opposite, but filibustering on a simple Bill like this which has an enormous amount of support in the House is cheating and I do not know how it is allowed.
A few comments have been made already which are infuriating. I do not remember either noble Lord signing up to my Bill on an all-elected Chamber, but I look forward to getting their signatures when I bring it back. This phrase about the “undiluted patronage of the Prime Minister” is not strictly true. I am here because Cameron honoured a promise in the party’s election manifesto. I am sure that Cameron and Clegg regret it but that is the fact, so there are people who are here not just on a whim. I remind all noble hereditary Lords that they are here on a whim, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, pointed out—the whim of a monarch, many centuries ago—and I do not believe that anybody is born that entitled. I admire what a lot of the hereditary Peers do here—I even have a best friend who is a hereditary Peer—but the fact is that it is a ridiculous system to maintain into this century. Quite honestly, this abolition of by-elections is a soft way to go about it. It values the noble Lords we have here at the moment but it says: “Enough”. This is a defunct and outdated system and we will gain respect from outside if we are to make a move of this kind.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I really am grateful for the contributions we have had. I thought pretty much everything that could be said about this Bill had been said at the various stages so far. This is the third day in Committee, which must be unprecedented for a Private Member’s Bill, or close to it anyway. Still, new thoughts arise, not least—I suppose this is not a new thought but it is a very significant one—from my noble friend Lord Foulkes, whose point was embellished with skill and elegance by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, whose clerkly word to describe the allowance of this amendment being tabled to the Bill was “generous”. I shall remember that all-encompassing word, which avoids saying brutally what needs to be said. I was surprised as well that this amendment was in the scope of the Bill. Should the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, decide to bring this back on Report, I hope that they consult the clerkly community, as I am sure they do, and that the clerks will reflect on what has been said today during this debate—particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—and decide that this should not be here. Many of us are perfectly happy about having a statutory Appointments Commission. I am happy about all things in life but I do not want them all tacked on to this Bill. That is all I am saying.
I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We have had very few votes, but support for this Bill in this House is overwhelming in all parties and in none, as well as among both life Peers and hereditary Peers. I have no doubt about that. I notice that one of the amendments asks that the Bill should not become operational until a majority of the hereditaries agree to it. This is only anecdotal, but a number of hereditary Peers have come to me to say, “Why on earth do they not let this Bill pass?” That is my appeal to them now.
We will come back to the Bill on Report. We have had a clear indication from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that there is a good chance that the Commons would support it. We would do ourselves no end of good by passing it and we would do ourselves significant damage if we allowed these silly by-elections to continue. Let us try to complete the Committee stage now.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, it made me smile when I heard several noble Lords criticise this proposal because I have had heard equally from noble Lords who want to attach their ideas to other legislation going through the House, their argument being, “We don’t get many chances to discuss bits of legislation so let’s tack it on to this Bill”. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, when he was the Chief Whip, will remember many occasions when amendments were tabled to tack on people’s specific wishes that some would consider not quite in the spirit of the Long Title. However, it was a chance to air a point.
Noble Lords have not criticised the need for a statutory Appointments Commission, although they have said that it would be wrong to have it with this legislation— I remember saying that as a Minister in response to quite a number of amendments.
I have been singled out for trying to delay the Bill. Yes, I have tabled amendments, but until today I think that we have had some six hours of discussion and I reckon that I have spoken for less than a quarter of an hour. I do not think that it is me who is holding up the Bill or discussion on it. I may have put down amendments, but everyone else seems to want to chime in.
I regret that the opportunity has not been taken to put this proposal into the Bill because I do not think that it would cause much of a problem. If everyone wants it, this is a perfect vehicle for taking it forward for the benefit of the future of this House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
I will not delay your Lordships for more than a moment. The proposal of my noble friend Lord Caithness to regularise selections as proposed in his amendment is a very good one and I support it.
Lord Grocott
As we come to our conclusion, I shall say simply this. I am very grateful to so many people for proving the success of Private Members’ Bills being held in Grand Committee. It should facilitate the opportunity for more Members to make use of the House’s time on a Friday while Second Readings are being taken in the main Chamber. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in our debate. I can barely believe that we have completed the Committee stage, but it looks as though we have.
House of Lords
Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill [HL]
Friday 23rd November 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill
Friday 23rd November 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2019 View all Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 September 2018 - (12 Sep 2018)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I should first like to declare an interest regarding my forthcoming appointment to be a member of the General Medical Council.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
It is a good start, my Lords—just have to keep going.
Every year, NHS Blood and Transplant holds a number of very moving ceremonies with donor families. These occasions are wonderful celebrations of the gift of a loved one’s organ, to give life to others. Last year in England, there were over 1,300 deceased organ donors and over 3,300 transplants. That is a wonderful achievement but we could do so much more. My Bill aims to increase the number of organ donations while maintaining strong family involvement in the decision which, I stress, will remain a remarkably altruistic act of giving. Nothing in this Bill will change the concept of giving.
It is thanks to the tireless work of a number of people to promote the Bill, especially my honourable friends Geoffrey Robinson and Dan Jarvis, who secured unprecedented cross-party support, that we are today a step closer to putting it on to the statute book. I extend my thanks to the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition, and to other leaders of the political parties in Westminster, for their continuous support for the Bill, and to the Daily Mirror, for its unflagging and enthusiastic support. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who took forward subsequent legislation in Wales to allow organs and tissues under deemed consent to be used in transplants in the rest of the UK countries. I am hoping that she may inform the House of the latest progress in Wales regarding the legislative changes that occurred there.
The Bill is often referred to as Max’s and Keira’s Bill, in honour of a recipient, 10 year-old Max Johnson, who recently received a “Pride of Britain” award from the Prime Minister for his immense bravery while waiting for a heart transplant, and the donor, Keira Ball, who tragically died in a road accident. I pay tribute to both of them.
There is currently a record 20 million people in England recorded on the organ donor register, but 400 people died last year while waiting for transplants, and a further 755 people were removed from the transplant list as they were just too ill to receive treatment and a transplant. This is partly down to the fact that only 1% of people die in circumstances where their organs are suitable for donation. It is also partly because members of the family are often not aware of their loved one’s wishes, and sometimes find it safer to say no. Our ambition is to achieve an 80% consent rate in England. This will not happen overnight; the experience in Wales is clear in that respect. However, if we reach that target and 80% of families allow donation to go ahead, there will be 280 donors a year, which could lead to as many as 700 more transplants a year. The Bill, if enacted, will be a significant step forward. Starting from the basis of presumed consent, the family would still be fully involved in the decision. The aim essentially is to spark in England the positive culture change that many nations in Europe have experienced, following their change to an opt-out position. It will mean more people being inspired to have that incredibly important conversation with their loved ones, knowing that the life of a person waiting for a transplant could be saved.
In countries where deemed consent systems are in place, there are generally higher numbers of organ donations when supplemented with wider measures. I will return to that later. It is particularly pleasing to note that Wales has now reached a consent rate of 70%, and the first few months of 2018 showed that rising to 73%.
I would like to give a summary of the Bill, which consists of three clauses. First, however, I would like to clarify a few things about its scope. The proposed consent system only covers deceased donations—it does not apply to living donations or donations for research purposes. The Bill would make changes to the Human Tissue Act 2004, which covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but it would make the changes to consent in England only. The system of deemed consent in England will be consistent with the Welsh opt-out system. Transplants which currently take place under the current system—heart, lung, kidney, liver, pancreas, bowel and tissues such as corneas, skin, bones and tendons—will fall under the deemed consent provisions. Excluded from those provisions will be the less common organs and tissues, often called novel transplants. These will still require express consent.
Following consultation, regulations will be set out by the Secretary of State in an affirmative statutory instrument, which will specify which organs or tissues will be excluded from deemed consent. A Written Ministerial Statement will be part of the process every time the regulations are amended. It is important we have an approach consistent with Wales and Scotland on these issues to make sure that nurses and clinicians working across borders follow the same approach.
There are other important safeguards in the Bill. First, all children below 18 will be excluded from deemed consent, although they will still be able to register as now to donate their organs. People who are not ordinarily resident in England for at least 12 months immediately before their death will be exempt from the new arrangements. In practice, this means that people living in England in the short term will not be affected by changes in the consent system. The Bill also provides a safeguard for people who lack the capacity to understand the concept of deemed consent for a significant period before their death. The decision on whether a person lacks capacity will continue to be established in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Very importantly, the Bill sets out the role of the deceased family and friends under the proposed arrangements. It makes it clear that they may provide information suggesting the deceased would not have consented, to prevent donation proceeding. This is very important. I reassure noble Lords that the family of the deceased will continue to be involved in discussions with specialist nurses about their loved one’s wishes and how best to support those wishes, also taking account of faith and cultural considerations. Clinicians will never proceed if the family object strongly. I know the Government have worked hard with different faiths to ensure that they are comfortable with how deemed consent will work. As Kidney Care UK put it, changes in the law on consent do not change the importance of people talking to their families about their wishes in respect of organ donation.
To support the smooth implementation of the provisions in the Bill, it places a duty on the Human Tissue Authority, the regulator, to update its code of practice and issue practical guidance for professionals. The new codes will be consolidated in a single code, to be consulted on and laid in Parliament. The Bill will also allow all organs removed in England for transplantation purposes to continue to be used across the UK, to save as many people in need as possible.
Clause 3 sets out that the Bill extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland as it will be amending the Human Tissue Act 2004, which extends to those countries. It sets out that Clauses 1 and 2 will come into force on the day or days that the Secretary of State appoints in regulations made by statutory instrument, so in effect the Secretary of State will have to set out what the commencement date is for deemed consent in England. Clause 3 automatically comes into force on the day that the Act is passed.
I recognise that a change to the consent system is not a panacea. The Bill needs to be accompanied by an assurance that capacity in the NHS in terms of transplant teams, intensive beds and specialist nurses will be sufficient. I particularly mention the need for good-quality training and greater numbers of specialist nurses. They are remarkable people who have the extremely difficult role of initiating discussions about potential organ donations with families at such a sensitive time. The Spanish experience is that investment in specialist nurses is one of the major factors in their success and the transformation that has occurred in Spain.
It will be essential to have a strong communications strategy to ensure that the public are fully aware of the changes, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on that. I would also say—and I think this is the Welsh experience—that it is important to have follow-up campaigns because clearly, the cultural change we want to see will not happen overnight.
I end by saying that I am clear that the gift of giving will be as strong a part of organ donation as ever. I thought the Minister in the other place, Jackie Doyle-Price, put it well when the Bill went through its Commons stages:
“The most important thing any of us can do if we want to increase organ donation is ensure that we all have those conversations with our families, so that they understand our wishes … One of the great virtues of the Bill and the surrounding campaigns is that we have encouraged people to have those conversations. It has been a real driver of cultural change in that sense”.—[Official Report, Commons, Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill Committee, 12/09/18; cols. 11-12.]
I think that puts it very well. I am confident that, if enacted, the Bill will play a significant role in changing the culture towards organ donation in England and help hundreds of lives in the years to come. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am privileged to have the opportunity to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I very much applaud the way in which he has brought the Bill forward and the way he presented it today. I thought he covered exactly the points that must be at the forefront of our minds in thinking about its implementation. It is my hope and expectation that the Bill will pass into law, and that it will have precisely the beneficial effects that its promoters have sought.
It might be helpful, at this early stage in the debate—I know we all share the objectives—to review the previous thinking about these issues, not least from the passage of the 2004 legislation that we are amending. The noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, was Secretary of State at the time of the 2004 Act. I was shadow Secretary of State in another place. My interest in these issues was not least as a constituency Member of Parliament, in that I represented both Addenbrooke’s Hospital, where clinicians led by Roy Calne did ground-breaking work in reducing the rejection of transplanted organ tissue, and Royal Papworth Hospital, which has the largest number of heart and lung transplants, and is where Terence English conducted the first UK heart transplant and John Wallwork and colleagues performed the first heart and lung transplant. So I was always closely concerned with and supportive of the transplant work they were doing.
In 2004, however, it was not concluded during the passage of the legislation that we should proceed on the basis of deemed consent. There were two parts to that. First, the evidence continued to be inconclusive that deemed consent itself was the principal issue in obtaining the necessary organs for transplantation. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the Spanish experience, which was relevant and much debated at that time. We are going back some way, but those responsible for the system of consent in Spain took the view that an opt-out system was not the most important part of their experience in achieving the best transplant rates in Europe. A subsequent review was published in the journal Health Technology Assessment in 2009, so a little later. I was Secretary of State in 2010 and it was part of the thinking then. The conclusion of that systematic review across a number of countries said:
“Presumed consent alone is unlikely to explain the variation in organ donation rates between different countries. A combination of legislation, availability of donors, transplantation system organisation and infrastructure, wealth and investment in health care, as well as underlying public attitudes … and awareness … may all play a role”.
I am simply reiterating what the noble Lord made clear in moving the Second Reading today. All of those things matter.
In 2004, the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, said that he did not agree with the principle of deemed consent because, across the National Health Service and healthcare, we were setting out to ensure that consent was enshrined in our activity and that we should not proceed except on the basis of informed consent. To deem consent, arguably, is to abandon that principle. In this instance, we have to recognise that we are treading across an important ethical boundary, and understand why and how we are doing it. It is not that we should not do it, but that we understand the importance of recognising it.
As the noble Lord said, there is a provision in the Bill that says that, where families can demonstrate a reasonable basis for thinking that the deceased person would not have consented to transplantation, they should not proceed. The question also arises of a family who has no evidence of what the deceased person may have said, but objects themselves. We need to think carefully about that, not least because of what I remember from talking to nurses involved in transplanting at both Addenbrooke’s and Papworth, during the passage of the legislation in 2003. They said they did not quite understand what an opt-out system really meant. What is the difference between, on the one hand, asking the family of somebody who has died whether they would consent to donation; or, on the other hand, saying that, although consent is deemed to have been given, we are none the less going to ask whether you agree or object? They found it difficult to understand the difference.
In practice, we should recognise that there is a difference in terms of public attitude and awareness. I think that was demonstrated in Wales, and I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the Welsh experience. In the first year or so, it was not evident, because the numbers were small and the period of time relatively short, that there was a major shift. It may well be that more of a shift is taking place over time. But much of that may be less to do with the fact of deemed consent and more to do with public awareness and support for the process itself.
After our debate on the 2004 legislation, I would not want us to proceed in this debate thinking that the broader range of issues were then neglected. They were not. In 2008, the then Labour Government instituted the Organ Donation Taskforce, the objective of which was in the subsequent five years, I think, to increase donor rates by 50%. In practice, they went up by about 45% and have continued to increase. That is precisely because the things that we know are also important were happening. There was increased public awareness and there has been an increase in the number of people on the organ donor register. After 2010, we engaged the nudge unit—the behavioural unit—to think about how we could nudge people to make that choice before their death. That has had some benefit through organisations such as the DVLA, but especially in the training of staff in the NHS and the appointment of additional specialist nurses for organ donation. It is important that it is not the clinicians who have been trying to save a life who then have to speak to the family about organ donation. Having those specialist nurses available and staff having the right training is really important.
All those things happened under the Organ Donation Taskforce, so on that basis, I do not share the view of Chris Rudge, who was the transplant director when I was Secretary of State and was responsible for the implementation of the task force, who I believe continues to oppose deemed consent. I think we have an almost ethical obligation to do everything that may contribute to the achievement of higher donor rates and thereby to save lives. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is absolutely right: it is tragic that so many people are on the waiting list for organs and die or leave the list without the benefit of a transplant. We must do everything we can.
I urge colleagues to recognise that we must think very carefully about how we do that and to recognise that there are other things that we have done and should continue to stress which may themselves make a significant contribution. We should proceed only on the basis that there is consensus, which happily there is, between parties and, I suspect, widely in the country. The objective is so important that we must be willing to take the ethical step of deeming consent where we cannot be absolutely sure what the deceased person’s view would have been. On that basis, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on his appointment to the General Medical Council. I do not know whether I should also sympathise with him—I hope it bodes well for the GMC—because he certainly needs it.
I support the Bill, which proposes new opt-out legislation for the organ donation register. It is not a position I have held before when I have previously spoken about deemed consent, but I have had a change of mind.
Before I go any further, I am very pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Elder, will speak in this debate. I very much look forward to his contribution. I also put on record my gratitude to all those involved in organ donation. Every transplant is a reflection of the exceptional altruism of the donor and their family, and a testament to the care and hard work of many in the hard-pressed NHS. This has led to the organ donation and transplantation numbers reaching an all-time high. Last year, for the first time ever, 5,000 people benefited from a transplant in a single year.
Despite this, several challenges remain. As we have already heard, there is an increasing gap between the number waiting for a transplant and the number of organs available. Every day, three people who are in need of an organ die. As of 15 November 2018, 6,163 people are on active waiting lists for an organ. Over 300 are children, and over 300 are in need of a new heart. Change in legislation may not by itself be the magic wand, but together with other necessary measures, it may well begin to narrow the gap between those on the waiting lists and the number of organs available.
There is also the challenge of the huge imbalance between the number of people in black, Asian and ethnic minority communities who are in need of a transplant, and the number of suitable organs available for them. More organs from these communities are needed, as blood and tissue types must match, particularly for things like kidney transplants.
Surveys suggest that opt-out legislation leads to higher rates of organ donation, but at the same time, evidence of direct cause and effect is lacking. Clearly, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Lansley, other factors must also play an important part in raising the numbers. We need to be aware of what these might be. I agree with the Nuffield Council on Bioethics when it says that opt-out systems can be ethical,
“if people are well-informed, families are appropriately involved (well-supported … ), and trust in the organ donation system is not compromised”.
This means that this Bill must pay serious attention to three key areas. The first is a well-informed public: the public should be informed on an ongoing basis—that point has also been made. Information about organ donation should be easily available.
The second area is the importance of families: families must stay at the heart of the decision-making process. In this respect, the role of the specialist nurses is crucial—again, this has already been emphasised. We need to make sure that there are enough specialist nurses available, as they play an important role at a very sensitive time in families’ lives, both for the donor and the recipient of an organ.
The third area is the importance of maintaining trust in the organ donation system. Public information on the new system will need to be backed up by the continuous education and training of the health professionals involved.
Let me now turn briefly to the challenges in relation to black and Asian communities and organ donation. Over 1,800 patients from black and Asian communities are on the waiting list for organ donation. Some 901 received a transplant last year, but had waited much longer; 114 people donated organs. Some 35% of the total number of patients waiting for kidney transplants are from black and Asian communities, partly because of the increased rates of diabetes and renal disease that occur in these communities, and partly because kidney transplants require a closer matching of blood and tissues than other transplants.
It is important that these communities understand what opt-out means, and that they are involved. While the government campaign will focus on black and Asian and other ethnic minorities, it will require a sensitive approach on the back of opt-out legislation, providing culturally sensitive information, a targeted awareness-raising campaign, and issues that need to be addressed to gain the trust that will be required.
This legislation is widely supported by the medical and other health professionals and charities, particularly those such as the British Heart Foundation, and we should support it too. I hope that the House will not hold it back.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on his important work in bringing the Bill before us today, and of course on his new appointment—we are very proud of him.
In so many ways, the business of politics should be to minimise unnecessary pain and marginalise premature death, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. According to the latest NHS figures for the year ending March 2018, the total number of patients whose lives were saved or improved by an organ transplant increased by 7% to 5,090, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said. It is a mercy that we live in a time when, thanks to science and innovation, sick children can be given new hearts—but really they are old hearts. This is the most wonderful form of recycling we can ever hope to see. Like all good recycling schemes, the more people who get involved and take action and tell their kids about it, the stronger and the healthier our society becomes.
The statistics show that the incidence of every kind of organ transplant is rising, from donors both living and deceased. But hundreds still die every year while waiting on the list, hoping for a donor who does not appear. We are told of the 426 patients who died last year on the waiting list for new organs; of those, 17 were children. There can be nothing more gruesome for their families—all those loved ones who know that the science is in place and the doctors are ready, but the phone never rings. Their souls must be truly sealed up with tears.
Everyone knows a relative or a friend—I certainly do—whose lifespan has been extended by the good will of a fellow human being whom he or she will most likely never meet. The silent solidarity of one particular young man who has bone marrow drawn out of his pelvis so that an older man can defeat blood cancer is the most precious human currency we can ever store. The kidney, the pancreas, the liver, the heart and the lung can all be used more than once. A thousand tons of relief and joy must pour into families every year because of this modern, scientific and miraculous reality.
I congratulate Dan Jarvis and all those from all sides of the House in another place who have pushed so hard to make Max and Keira’s law not merely a step forward but, with this opt-out provision, a turn of the ratchet. The Mirror’s campaigning activity, sustained over several years, is a credit to the editor and the journalists concerned, as well as to all the brave families who told and retold their stories in its pages. Such a sustained campaign has been needed because, although 80% of people said they would be willing to donate their organs when asked last year, only 37% had recorded that decision on the NHS organ donor register. The gap is important.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned, we are surely all glad that, where in the past there have been cultural and religious inhibitions about post-mortem transplants, that now seems to be something of a losing force. I hope that continues. We have to hope that the whole of England, in all its glorious diversity, absorbs the message of deemed consent and that every community teaches its young that organ donation is one of the highest forms of good.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support this Bill and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing it before us today. Its importance cannot be overestimated. It is a good and—thank goodness—simple Bill, and it will save lives. As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned, there are encouraging signs of donors coming forward, but the statistics are still depressing and distressing. As we have heard, Wales already has a presumed consent or opt-out system, and Scotland intends to follow suit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, mentioned, research has shown that 82% support organ donation, and the public consultation showed unprecedented support, yet we know that only 37% are on the organ donor register.
This simple but effective Bill has the support of doctors and health campaigners. It will not, on its own, solve the problem of getting more donors on the register, but it will enable us to move forward and launch an awareness campaign. I am sure all noble Lords remember the huge publicity around the early transplants, when the successful recipients were household names, seen on TV and interviewed in newspapers and magazines due to the rarity of the procedure. Thank goodness that is not the case today and transplants are now an everyday occurrence, but that headline news was an incentive for people to come forward as donors. The general public are, on the whole, unaware of how important it is for donors to register. Most do not register unless they are personally affected.
Therefore, to be as effective as we hope it will be, this Bill depends on the awareness campaign around it. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, there needs to be a cultural change. I think I am right in saying that, at present, family refusal rates in the UK are considerably higher than in many parts of mainland Europe. There needs to be education in schools, colleges and universities; an awareness campaign on the radio and TV, in newspapers, magazines and social media; a campaign on lives saved, with examples from donors and recipients; and, perhaps most importantly, a campaign to encourage families to have the conversation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, letting the relatives know the organ donor’s decision will make it much easier for them to be supportive at a time of immeasurable grief. I still remember vividly how difficult it was, when I was nursing, to have this conversation with relatives and loved ones, who more often than not were unaware of a donor’s wishes.
This Bill does not change families’ rights. They will continue to be included and will not be overruled; it will not close families out. But the way in which the possibility of donation is presented can have a critical impact on the decision that relatives and loved ones make. Timing, language and the right healthcare professionals are all important factors, and I was pleased to see confirmation in a letter from my noble friend the Minister that there will be specialist nurses for organ donation and a key focus on training to enhance skills in supporting grieving families. It is also vital that those who opt out and relatives who do not give consent feel no shame, and that we respect their decisions.
This Bill is a no-brainer, as far as I am concerned. With the right campaign, it will become apparent that this is not a forced choice and that organ donation is still a gift, perhaps one of the greatest gifts that can be given from one human being to another. One donor can help many recipients. The donor process benefits not only recipients, but also the families of donors and recipients. Recipients’ families have the joy of having their loved ones returned to health, while donors’ families find meaning and gain peace from knowing that lives have been saved as a result of the unfortunate death of their loved ones.
Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing this important Bill to our attention, and I am grateful for all the clear explanations of it from both the noble Lord and the Minister, my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy. I am delighted that the Government fully support it. Let us now get on with it and get the Bill through Parliament.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on bringing this important Bill to this House. It will bring organ donation legislation in England in line with that of Wales and Scotland for the benefit of all. I should declare that I was involved in the early stages of consultation in Wales, and I introduced the Kidney Transplant Bill in 2008 for presumed consent to donate one kidney, provided there was no evidence either from a central registry or from the dead patient’s relatives that he or she had opted out of being a potential donor. My Bill did not progress but I continued to have an involvement in the developments in Wales.
Many years ago, I conducted a study of bereaved parents and was struck by the comfort that donation gave them after their terrible, tragic loss. Some regretted not being asked about transplant donation and one regretted having declined.
Laws send social messages. When we were considering such legislation in Wales, we undertook very widespread consultation and carefully considered the pros and cons. I hope that England can now learn from our experience, because all the planning and consultation was essential to the success of the legislation when it came into force.
I want to cover how we went about it, the results of our process overall and things that I hope the Minister and the team will implement to take this forward. I am grateful to Professor Vivienne Harpwood from Cardiff University school of law for giving me the latest data. She has worked on this issue for years. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, whom I would like to call a friend—she is indeed a friend—for the important role she has played in Wales.
A tremendous amount of careful thought and planning contributed to the success of the legislation: there was very careful consideration of the ethical issues; we studied the outcome of similar legislation in other countries and consulted with many sections of society, including faith groups and ethnic minority groups to help us understand their sensitivities, respect their views and address their concerns; and numerous meetings and consultations took place. Although the Human Transplantation (Wales) Act obtained Royal Assent on 10 September 2013, the system did not begin to operate until December 2015 to allow adequate time for people to absorb and understand essential information about the new law.
As we had decided to introduce a “soft” opt-out system, we realised that it was necessary to have a large-scale information/education process, during which families were encouraged to discuss their wishes and people were urged to make their views about organ donation known to their relatives. Every household in Wales received carefully designed bilingual written information on more than one occasion, and there was an extensive media campaign, roadshows in supermarkets and other places, and a national countdown clock. This campaign informed people clearly that they could either opt in or opt out of the organ donor register, or do nothing if they did not object but wished their family to decide. A 20-second TV advert urged, “Talk about your organ donation decision or someone else may speak for you”. It was very powerful.
By 2017, over half the adult population in Wales had talked with family about their wishes. The widespread publicity about the benefits of organ donation helped people understand the gift of life, and we saw an early rise in the number of organs donated and transplanted. We also invested in training specialist nurses in organ donation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, stressed, these nurses are key to the legislation working well. They sensitively explore the family’s recall of those conversations and their feelings.
It is essential that the bereaved family are able to express their views and know that they will be respected, as the Bill before us ensures. There must never be pressure on families. They are being asked to consider donation when they are numb at the sudden loss of the person they love—their child, spouse, fiancée, partner, brother, sister or a parent. Their grief at that time is overwhelming, and they live for the rest of their lives with the events of that tragic day. They remember every word of the conversations they had, second by second. That is why a soft opt-out, as in this Bill and in Wales, is so important.
Remembering donors and thanking families with national events, such as the Order of St John services of thanksgiving, are important to recognise that they have given the gift of life. In my own family, the service honoured the man who died, bringing enormous comfort to all the bereaved, including his children.
Three and a half years after we implemented our legislation in Wales, we now have the highest combined donation rate in the UK of 80.5% after brain stem or circulatory death. Currently, England runs at 66.2%, Scotland at 63.6% and Northern Ireland at 66.7%. Donation after brain stem death now has consent rates in Wales of 88.2%, as opposed to those in England at 73.3%. Donation after circulatory death consent has also risen in Wales to 68%, compared with 59.8% in England. These figures are better than we were expecting when the legislation was going through the Assembly, and the accompanying publicity campaign might account in part for this latest good news and, importantly, that we have not had the problems or backlash predicted.
There has been a steady increase in Wales. On 1 December 2016—the first anniversary of the implementation of the new legislation—the figures indicated that 39 organs were transplanted from patients whose consent was deemed. Welsh Government reports published on the same day were accompanied by positive statements by both the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Health. By February 2018, 39% of the Welsh population had opted in to donate.
When you speak to people from donor families, you realise how glad people are to have been able to transform the lives of complete strangers, despite having faced the overwhelming tragedy of losing a loved one. You realise how important the recognition of their gift is, through these services of thanksgiving and so on, as they go forward in their own lives.
I seek two reassurances from those taking this forward. The first is that the public education campaign will be as thorough and carefully planned as ours in Wales. The second is that it will be accompanied by enough intensive care beds and specialist nurses in organ donation. Families must never feel hurried, and there can be a need to maintain hydration and oxygenation while waiting for the transplant to be set up. Even those waiting for a transplant always keep the phone by them, anxiously waiting for that call to the operating theatre, but it can take some time to get there. I am grateful for the assurance given in the letter from the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that preferential donation, which I argued hard for in 2009, will not be jeopardised. Where a family member is awaiting transplant, and the tissue is compatible, relatives must be able to ask for that specific organ to go to that person, while other organs go unconditionally to others waiting.
On a solemn note, I hope with this Bill we will see an end to transplant tourism, where desperately poor people sell an organ—nearly always a kidney—or, even worse, organs are harvested from executed prisoners. We should follow Italy, Spain, Israel and Taiwan in legislating to confront this abhorrent human rights issue, but that is for another day.
The Bill before us today is incredibly important. It can help the 5,000-plus people waiting for a transplant to join the 50,000 now living thanks to organ donation. It is truly the gift of life, and it deserves a smooth passage.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, I support the Bill and hope it will pass. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy for the briefings they gave us before today. However, I have a few reservations, which I will address shortly.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the black, Asian and minority ethic—BAME—community is one group of patients most in need of a change in legislation. BAME people are often the most in need of transplants—particularly kidney transplants for renal failure due to secondary high blood pressure—but, for various reasons, they often refuse consent because of faith or cultural concerns. In 2017-18, 1,487 BAME patients were on the renal transplant waiting list, many as a result of high blood pressure—a particular problem for this ethnic group—but only 49 deceased kidney donors from BAME backgrounds to help out. That represents a fraction of the need. As a surgeon and an African, I understand the difficulties faced by BAME people in becoming donors. There may be religious, cultural or ill-informed reasons for saying no.
I have experience of working as a patron of Transplant Links Community, or TLC, a charity that has transformed the lives of many people in Africa and the Caribbean who suffer from kidney failure, especially children. Without transplantation, such people have to endure regular dialysis, often three times a week, which can be challenging in a rural setting and extremely expensive. The charity was founded by two kidney specialists from Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham: Dr Dwomoa Adu, a fellow Ghanaian and a nephrologist, and Dr Andrew Ready, a transplant surgeon.
In 1974, Dr Adu and I worked in the renal service at Korle-Bu Hospital in Accra, Ghana, the hospital chosen by the Birmingham team for their first live-donor kidney transplant in Ghana in 2007. We have heard about a boy called Max, but Felix, the young boy on whom this transplant was performed, has completed a chemistry degree and hopes to become a doctor. The programme has now been extended to Trinidad, Jamaica, Barbados and Zambia and is supported by my fellow patrons, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. By their very nature, live-donor transplants can help only a small number of patients, while cadaveric donation has the potential to help many by offering more than one organ for transplantation.
As a surgeon working in the UK, I know how difficult and distressing it can be to approach the deceased’s family with a request for organ donation, often after heroic efforts to save the person’s life. As we have heard, it is not surprising that at this most sensitive time, some families say no—even if the deceased had indicated a desire to donate. Eight out of 10 patients on the transplant waiting list are hoping for a kidney; currently, 4,375 people in England are waiting for a kidney. A change from opting in to opting out will make an enormous difference and provide more organs for transplantation.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, unless the infrastructure is improved, with more specialist nurses, transplant co-ordinators and so on, we will not see much change. The British Transplant Society warns that,
“assessments of the effects of opt-out laws on donation rates are hampered by differences in cultural attitudes, economic conditions, availability of intensive care units, numbers of transplant co-ordinators, degree of governmental support and other factors, whose influence may be important but uncharted”.
Spain, as we have heard, has the highest rate internationally of transplantations with the opt-out policy, but it introduced the system in 1979 and saw a significant increase only,
“ten years after the law was introduced. Much of Spain’s success is attributed to the establishment of a new national transplant organisation to co-ordinate the donation and transplantation process, including the appointment of transplant co-ordinators who instigate conversations with the family of potential donors”.
As I said, doctors faced with repeated rejections by families often fail to press the case and so opportunities are lost. We must invest in more staff as well as raise public awareness of the need to donate. The Government will, I am sure, launch a campaign to highlight the need for more organ donors. Public awareness will, we hope, lead to an increase in donors, especially from BAME communities, who face the greatest challenge with donations, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, told us.
I started by referring to live-donor transplants. These reflect a personal commitment—a gift, as has been said, from one loved one to another. This altruistic giving should continue and not be impacted by the belief that it is no longer necessary as the opt-out programme will remove the need for it. Tissue- matched live-donor transplants give the best results and we must encourage families to continue to engage in the programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to an organ donation consent rate in Wales of 77%. I have a publication here from the Welsh Government, dated 16 November, which suggests that Wales has reached the highest organ donation consent rate in the UK, at 80.5%. This compares to 66.2% in England, 63.6% in Scotland and 66.7% in Northern Ireland. This is the first sign of Wales’s opt-out programme working. It is time for us to catch up, but let us not assume that a change in the law will be the end of the matter, like waving a magic wand—it will not. It will require preparation and information to drive a public awareness campaign and I look to the Minister to tell us how this will be achieved. I can also tell the House that I have spoken to the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, who personally supports the Bill and will be raising it with his council in December.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, the Church of England is wholly committed to both the principle and the practice of organ donation, believing as it does that giving oneself and one’s possessions voluntarily for the well-being of others and without compulsion is a Christian duty and that organ donation is a striking example of that. Like many other noble Lords, I am personally glad to have my name on the organ donor register. I was closely involved with the so-called fleshandblood churches campaign, which we ran in partnership with the NHS from 2012 onwards and added thousands of potential donors to the list. We therefore have absolutely no wish to be remotely churlish about this Private Member’s Bill which is so very clearly well intentioned, and with whose overall objectives we are in complete agreement. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing it forward.
However, I cannot let this moment pass without mentioning three caveats which have all been raised elsewhere and by other noble Lords but which bear repeating and need to be borne firmly in mind as the Bill proceeds. First, “deemed consent” is not some sort of magic wand—as the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, referred to it—that will automatically increase the number of effective donations. More important by some distance, as we have been reminded, is the raising of awareness, the encouragement of conversations about this subject in families and a new willingness to talk about death. This was stated by the Bill’s author as one of its principal aims, but I do not see the Bill achieving that aim in itself. As some have observed, it could have the opposite effect. This would be highly unfortunate since, as we know, for understandable reasons, grieving relatives are often a stumbling block to donation, even when it was manifestly the deceased person’s wish.
My second hesitation is that our present system, which is referred to as a hard opt-in but is really a soft opt-in, reflects a very careful balance between individuals, relatives and the state, with a presumption that the state does not have a right to dictate either to individuals or their families how their bodies should be used. An opt-out system represents, whether it means to or not, a major shift in the state’s relationship with its citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, touched on this. As the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales observed, an opt-in system emphasises the positive ethos of donation as a free gift with informed consent. Despite the assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the Bill is still very much about giving, this suggests that we need an overwhelming case that numbers of lives saved or enhanced would be significantly increased. That overwhelming case would have to be made before a change of this kind is introduced.
That brings me to my third caveat. There is at present, I suggest, no overwhelming case. The evidence, such as we have, is rather ambivalent. I fully acknowledge the February 2018 BMJ article cited in our Library briefing, which says that Wales has seen more registered donors and fewer family refusals than any other part of the UK since the introduction of the opt-out system in 2015—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, referred to the very high consent rate in Wales. However, at the same time, as the same briefing records, the Welsh Government indicate that, as yet, opt out has had no impact on the number of actual organ donors in Wales. It is three years on: perhaps we do need to wait 10 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, suggested, because at the moment the evidence is not clear.
I note the comments of the highly regarded Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which is concerned that making a legislative change based on poor evidence risks undermining public trust in the organ donation system. Indeed, as we have been reminded, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, examples from countries such as Spain indicate that improvements to transplant protocols and procedures are more important than a change to the consent system. That is why the Church of England would prefer to build on the current opt-in model to increase the number of organ donors and transplants. However, we accept fully the head of steam, as it were, behind the Bill and will certainly not oppose it. None the less, we ask that in the almost certain event of its successful passage three very important considerations are taken into account.
The first—we have heard a great deal about this already—is that there should be very good communication, not least in schools and in BAME communities, where, as we have heard, the need for donors and transplants is often greatest. We heard some statistics on this from the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The second is that adequate resources should be made available for the implementation of this new system, including specialist nurses for organ donation. That has been mentioned by almost all noble Lords who have spoken. The third is that more effective use should be made of potential donors, in ways highlighted by the transplant pathway. Only then do we believe that the pressing need for more organ donations will be met.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, in speaking on this Bill, I should first declare my interest as a non-executive director of NHS Blood and Transplant, as set out in the register of Members’ interests.
There are many people who deserve credit for their role in this legislation, but as a number of noble Lords have said, the most profound recognition and honour should perhaps be given to Keira Ball and Max Johnson. Keira, as many noble Lords will know, died tragically at the age of nine in a car accident. During a time of unimaginable grief and shock, and with his wife also seriously injured, Keira’s father agreed to organ donation. Keira saved the lives of four people through that precious gift. One of those patients, as we know, was Max Johnson, who received her heart. His campaign was instrumental in inspiring this Bill that we are debating today.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, stated, we also owe a huge debt to Geoffrey Robinson and Dan Jarvis, who introduced the Bill in another place. We also owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has brought this Bill before this House.
As many noble Lords have also recognised, every year hundreds of people continue to die while awaiting a transplant, due to lack of availability of organs. Hundreds more come off the transplant list because their health has deteriorated so greatly that they cannot receive a transplant. The noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Ribeiro, and other noble Lords are of course absolutely right that the Bill on its own will not change that, but the experience in Wales demonstrates that such a Bill, accompanied by effective communications—and most importantly, a public debate and family conversations—can mark a profound shift. The latest figures from Wales have shown such a shift, and I pay tribute, as other noble Lords have, to my noble friend Lady Randerson for her part in that process.
Already, there has been extensive engagement from the public in England as a result of this Bill being brought forward. Over 17,000 people responded to the public consultation, a figure that is well in excess of normal response rates to government consultations. NHSBT’s ongoing public surveys indicate that over 80% of the UK population supports organ donation. As part of the consultation process, NHSBT also undertook work to seek the views of those who are most closely involved in the donation process: intensive care clinicians; clinical leads for organ donation; and specialist nurses for organ donation. Over 700 responses were received. The results show that over 76% of respondents supported the change in legislation. There are also many people who not only responded to the formal consultation but who have given further help to review and scrutinise the Bill to ensure it achieves its objectives without adverse or unintended consequences. The contribution of the faith communities has also been critical.
So the Bill has the support of the public, it has stakeholder support and it has medical and nursing support, and that support will need to be honoured by doing everything possible to make sure that every family of every single potential donor is approached and, where consent is in place, that every single organ that can be safely transplanted is transplanted. First, there is the importance of the communications strategies and campaigns, which have been spoken about already as having been important in Wales, that can raise awareness of the change in the law and encourage conversations in families, so that people have an understanding of the new legislation and also have reassurance that the decision still lies with the individual. Secondly, there is a need to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to manage the increase in donation and transplant activity. Medical and nursing teams need to be able to keep pace with the anticipated rise. Thirdly, we need to ensure that everything is done to use all organs that are donated.
It is anticipated that the change in legislation will increase the availability of organs from donors after circulatory death, from whom currently fewer organs can be successfully transplanted. Organ usage from these donors can be dramatically increased if the retrieval teams are able to use technologies that preserve the organs. For example, between February 2015 and July 2018, the introduction of machine perfusion for hearts led to 66 additional hearts being available for transplant. Service evaluations for the use of abdominal organ machine perfusion also demonstrate significant increases in the number and quality of organs that can be donated. Using these new technologies will help ensure that no potential for a safe transplanted organ is missed.
The fourth and final approach needed to deliver successful change is to continue to publicly recognise and celebrate organ donors in the way that a number of noble Lords have already mentioned. Organ donation is the last, greatest gift that anyone could possibly give. It is giving the gift of life and it must continue to be celebrated, even when this Bill is passed.
During the debate over the proposed changes to the law, a number of important issues have been raised by the public and a variety of stakeholders, particularly around family and faith. The public and stakeholders have been very clear that it is vital that the family should continue to be involved in discussions regarding organ donation after a change in the law. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made clear, that must, and will, always remain the case. The next of kin of potential donors will always be approached prior to donation. If the family is not present when the patient first enters hospital, the NHS goes to great lengths to find them. That starts when the ambulance crews first arrive at the scene and continues until the next of kin can be found. If necessary, the police are asked for their help, and other records such as passport applications are checked to identify next of kin. Where there is no family, others are approached, such as friends of long standing.
Family discussion is vital for three reasons. First, it is the right thing to do. Secondly, speaking to families is necessary to determine whether their loved one would have wanted to donate, and that will continue. Thirdly, information is needed from the family regarding past medical and lifestyle information. Without this, it is much more difficult to determine whether it would be safe for retrieved organs to be transplanted.
Many noble Lords have paid tribute to the specialist nurses and highlighted their importance in this process. They are vital, and anybody who has had the privilege of speaking with them about their work will know their dedication to the very difficult job they do, in such a professional, sensitive and caring way. They ensure that, as far as possible, the family are given sufficient time to consider organ donation. NHSBT data shows that family consent rates are significantly higher if a specialist nurse is involved in the family approach.
Families are also aided by knowing whether their loved one had recorded a decision on the organ donor register. The consent rate is 92% if the family know that their loved one had recorded a decision to donate on the register. It will remain important to encourage people to register a positive decision. The family will always be asked for their views on whether any special considerations should be taken into account, including whether their loved one had a particular faith or beliefs and whether the family would like to speak to a faith leader or counsellor.
Finally, there are strict policies and protocols in place to safeguard the process, with many checks throughout the donation, retrieval and transplant process. Consent is checked on multiple occasions, by several different medical, nursing and support teams. NHS Blood and Transplant is audited and inspected on this aspect by the Human Tissue Authority.
In conclusion, it is absolutely right to say that this Bill, in itself, is not a panacea, but it is an important contribution. It will help start the debate and deliver—in the way that has been shown in Wales—profound changes, we hope, in levels of donation. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and to all those who have brought this Bill forward. I recognise the work of officials in the Department of Health and Social Care, and the great work that has been done by the Minister in another place, Jackie Doyle-Price, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy. Most importantly, our tributes, thanks and recognition should go to the donors and their families, whose decisions are the gift of life. We hope that this Bill will allow far more people to benefit from such donations.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his sponsorship of this Bill. I also pay tribute to all those here and in the other place for their tireless endeavours so far on this important matter. That it has cross-party support in both Chambers is also very welcome and will, I hope, facilitate smooth passage into law.
My Lords, the briefing for this debate has been clear and informative, so I will not take up time telling the House that which they already know. The stats are deeply distressing and concerning, as many noble Lords have mentioned today. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned, three people die each day due to a lack of suitable organ donation. Over 6,000 people across the United Kingdom are actively waiting for transplants that will save or significantly prolong their lives. On average, those from ethnic minority backgrounds may wait much longer than others for a suitable match.
It was as a trustee of the British Lung Foundation that I became aware of the crucial need for and success of organ transplants and their transformational effect on not just those whose lives they saved, but their families and friends as well. The saying “a new lease of life” never rang more true. But I confess, my support for the British Lung Foundation may not have come about had I not witnessed my own mother succumb to emphysema some years before. It was heartbreaking to watch my much-loved mother’s most vibrant life deteriorate, to the extent that she struggled to simply breathe. An organ donation would not have saved her, but what we do know is that today there are hundreds of people afflicted with lung disease, and many whose condition could be improved or life saved by a transplant. It is right that we do all we can to finalise and pass this very necessary Bill, but also provide the sustainable environment in which it will need to operate.
I was pleased to note that the money resolution for this Bill was passed in September. It is important recognition of the additional work an opt-out system would require and the costs that will need to be borne by the NHS and its blood transfusion authority, for example. I recognise and respect the absolute right of individuals to opt-out of organ donation, and we must make it easy for those people to do so. Establishing the practical infrastructure for those who do wish to follow through is also vital. Funding for these elements is indeed key. The United Kingdom has a very low level of organ donation consent—a sobering point which illustrates a great and profound need for a public awareness and education campaign on this subject. Both here and in the other place, attention has previously been drawn to the example set by Spain, whose noteworthy successes in this field include both educating its people and reaching families who wish to override consent previously given.
When considering the Bill’s financial implications, I would encourage the Government to continue reflecting on the huge importance of public awareness. It is at the age of 18 that a person becomes eligible to determine whether or not they opt out of organ donation. In order to make an informed decision and ensure their wishes are carried out, they must be able to speak with ease about it to their families, friends, teachers, doctors, faith leaders and so on. The only way to ensure that everyone is comfortable having this conversation is by giving them the knowledge they need through open, transparent and easily accessible means. Public health campaigns have had significant impact and huge success in the past, but invariably they require co-ordination across government portfolios and the money to back them up. It would be devastating to win the day but lose the battle because of a lack of information.
I am delighted the Government are supporting the Bill. I feel grateful to be able to play some small part in furthering the cause today and I look forward to supporting the Bill going forward.
Lord Elder (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support the Bill and, in doing so, congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on his role in this and Geoffrey Robinson, in another place with other colleagues, for introducing a timely and important Bill.
I start by declaring something of an interest. As many of you will know, I am a recipient of a heart transplant myself. I was reflecting recently that, when I had my heart transplant by the excellent team led by John Dark at the Freeman in Newcastle, all those years ago, they said that the half-life of a transplant patient was about seven and a half years and I would be very lucky to last 30. There was the important rider of a new drug being introduced and, with a bit of luck, that would improve things. I do not know what has happened but, as that was now slightly over 30 years ago, I am particularly grateful for developing technologies in this area.
All I have done and been able to do over the past 30 years has been the by-product of a decision of either an individual or their next of kin, or both, to allow someone they did not know to benefit from the tragedy that they were facing from the loss, often sudden, of a loved one. So I come to this debate knowing and understanding the benefits for the patient or the recipient of a transplant, but of course I am very conscious that every recipient is one part of a process that involves either an individual making a commitment to the transplant programme by saying that, should their life be cut short, their organs should be used to help others to live—an act of great generosity—or, if not them by them, by their next of kin or others, so that others could benefit from their tragedy.
I appreciate that a register is important, but nothing is quite as important, in my view, as speaking to friends and relatives, and having an understanding of what they want and how to do it. This can mean either that the donor has made clear directly their view that their organs should be used or that the next of kin takes that view themselves. It can also mean people taking a decision in the most difficult of circumstances. For many, the decision will be sought at the point when all they can think of is the need to mourn, to cope, and to help their family and friends to do likewise. The danger is that if they take the entirely understandable decision to leave the decision about transplant for later, it will not be possible, because it is too late. I pay tribute, as others have done, to the members of the transplant teams—the co-ordinators and specialist nurses—who have the crucial and difficult task of talking to families, on both sides of the process, and taking them through the fraught times they are facing. They are vital to the success of the scheme.
Of course, as a recipient of a transplant, I support the Bill. It is not because it will transform everything—it will not—but because it is another essential step in making the process of transplantation more accepted, better understood and more common than it is at the moment. This may mean not just this change of policy; I hope it will not be the end but the continuing of a serious attempt to have a public, open discussion and argument about the importance, understanding and benefits of signing up to the transplant process, and all that that means for individuals, their families and friends.
What the Bill does not mean is a change to the position whereby, if anyone has made clear their wishes not to have any part of the transplant programme, they should not be overturned. But it opens the way for those who have not made their views known, still to be eligible, with safeguards, for their organs to be used in the event of their untimely death. It should therefore increase the number of transplants possible and reduce the number of otherwise avoidable deaths from the lack of available organs. For that it has to be supported. As I say, it will not end all problems, but it will be a step change in the movement to what some of us think would be a more rational use of the bodies we have been given after these bodies have ceased to be of use to us. I wish the Bill well.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I join in the congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on his promotion of this Private Member’s Bill. This is of course a very difficult and sensitive subject. First, one must recognise the importance, for those awaiting transplants and their loved ones, of increasing the number of donors as much as we can. I note that the number of donors has been steadily increasing, both in absolute amounts and as a percentage, for the last 10 years—from 771 in England in 2008-09 to 1,349 in 2017-18—and this is of course very welcome.
I have no medical training whatever but I wish to draw your Lordships’ attention to my register of interests, which discloses that I am a vice-president of the Jewish Leadership Council and the president of Westminster synagogue. As such, speaking as a progressive rather than Orthodox Jew, I point out that, as some of your Lordships might be aware, as in many religions there are many strands within Judaism. The Orthodox community would probably be guided by the traditional biblical prohibitions against making any cuts to a body. The body is regarded as a holy vessel, because it has housed a soul created by God. The body therefore has to be honoured, as much as if it still contained a living person. However, I have discussed this matter directly with the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, and he believes that all Jews would temper that view by recognising that there is a higher value of saving a person’s life, and that that trumps all considerations.
Needless to say, every rabbi has a view and the old saying that for every two Jewish people you will find three opinions seems as valid in this field as any other. I am also a member of Hurley’s local synagogue in Maidenhead. The rabbi there, Dr Jonathan Romain, points out that there is the issue of personal autonomy and the fact that our body belongs to us, not to the Government or the NHS. So while it may be very worthy to donate organs after our death, we alone should make that choice. This was before he concluded that whatever the ethics of personal autonomy, and despite biblical objections to making cuts to the body, saving life is the highest objective.
Other rabbis, particularly Rabbi Sylvia Rothschild, point out that, ethically, for any medical procedure a person should be informed about and understand what is to happen, including any risks, and should consent explicitly to each procedure. That would not be possible with an opt-out system, which she encapsulates by pointing out that presumed consent would arrogate to the state rights that were hard won, including the right to own and make decisions about our bodies. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle pointed this out. But she goes on to say—and others make this point—that perhaps the better way to increase the number of organ donors, which I believe currently stands at 24.9 million, is to invest in educating the public to understand the importance of registering if they wish to be a donor.
I am, however, supportive of this Bill, mainly because of the letter that the Minister, Jackie Doyle-Price, wrote to the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews on 25 October in which she stated that,
“organs and tissue will not be taken without full consultation with persons in a qualifying relationship”.
The Minister specifically stated in that letter:
“There will always be a personal discussion with the family and full consideration … given to the views of a person’s loved ones”.
I thank her for that clarification but it does of course raise certain questions. First, should not this commitment be in the legislation rather than a side letter? Secondly, if this is to be a requirement, do we need the Bill? If in every case there will be a consultation before organ donation, which the letter confirms will require organ donation staff to go to extensive and far-reaching lengths to speak to family members, the opt-out does not really seem to change that much—particularly as there is a commitment that if family members cannot be reached, organs will not be taken from the deceased. I understand and am reassured to know that NHS organ donor teams will in any event need to talk to families as a matter of best practice, to try to determine whether the deceased had any allergies, history of drug abuse or other medical issues.
Leaving my reservations aside, I look to the Minster to confirm today that the terms of this letter will be honoured in full. This commitment is very important; of course, it raises some unresolved issues. For example, some families, such as mine, are mixed. My mother is Orthodox and may have reservations about organ donations, while other family members do not share this view. How will a consensus be reached? If any one person has reservations, will there be a prohibition? It is very hard for someone to determine another person’s faith and ethical views, and rational analysis of what a person would want could be very difficult and stressful at a moment of grief. It is much easier if the deceased has chosen to donate organs by opt-in, but that may be impossible, in reality, if we move to an opt-out system. Accordingly, we need legal recognition of the organ donor register, which is not in the Bill. Indeed, recognition is needed of other first-hand wishes, like the codicil of a will, which frequently specifies such matters in addition to selecting preference on the nature of burial or cremation.
In conclusion, a person’s decision to donate their organs to save the life of another human being is a wonderful act of humanity which deserves the utmost respect and support. Giving the state the right to take those organs, and depriving individuals of the ability to do so as a gift, is a very big step for our society to take. It must therefore carry with it respect for people’s ethical and religious views. I personally would not stand in the way of this Bill, but seek at this Second Reading the assurance from the Minister that I have set out in my remarks.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I too join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and indeed the two colleagues in another place he mentioned, on bringing this Bill to Parliament. His characteristic modesty meant that he did not remind us of his enormous experience of the National Health Service, in the management context before he came to your Lordships’ House, as a member of the Government and as a Member of this House. That experience gives us some extra reassurance about the integrity of the Bill and what it proposes.
Debates such as this raise serious, and sometimes acute, ethical dilemmas. I think the ethical dilemmas in relation to the Bill are strongly affected by the fact that this issue is about saving life, not ending it. As your Lordships know from previous debates, I take a very different view on issues that affect the ending of life. I am happy to support the Bill, because it seems to make an entirely positive ethical contribution to the debates we have on such issues, perhaps uniquely, in your Lordships’ House.
I know that repetition rarely improves the quality of any argument. However, the support for the Bill, repeated from all parts of this House, and from all walks of life represented here, provides further important affirmation for it. We know that we are a somewhat unusual institution in this House; if a Martian were to walk in and look at the rules by which we come here, we would not pass the Martian test. Nevertheless, where else in the parliamentary world can we hold such ethical debates? Where else do we hear the kind of evidence that we are hearing in this debate? We very recently heard a wonderful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Elder, who told us of the heart transplant he had over 30 years ago. As we have seen today, it left him a very fit person: he has climbed more mountains than most of us have looked at. I hope he has also been able to enjoy some of the more traditional Scots remedies for exhaustion and other concerns.
We have also heard evidence from my noble friend Lady Finlay, who has spoken about the changes to the law in Wales and how effective they have proved. I think she gave some reassurance to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle about the increasing transplant figures in Wales.
I also look forward to hearing the contribution from my old friend the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. She and I have known each other for many decades and I pay tribute to her determination. What she did in Wales on this issue was of great value, and I am sure she will provide very valuable evidence in a few minutes’ time.
That leads me to Wales. For many years I was an MP in a Welsh rural constituency and I am completely unsurprised that this system in the United Kingdom was first introduced in Wales. People in Wales tend to think more empirically than many in politics realise. Also, the devolution settlement in Wales, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, played a very important part, has made it much easier to bring to the statute book changes such as this in matters not reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. Wales has been able, as has Scotland in some things, to be a trailblazer on this issue and has provided a great deal of evidence.
My belief is that the system in Wales has worked very well. My noble friend Lady Finlay described the advertising campaign, which means that everybody in Wales, unless they spend 24 hours a day asleep, knows about this system and it is discussed in families, as well as in more public forums in Wales. It has worked very well and has widespread popular support, as it will have in England.
I turn to the duties of the medical profession and return to something that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said at the beginning of his speech. He told us that he is fortunate enough to have just been appointed as a member of the General Medical Council. I was a lay member of the GMC for 10 years, albeit in its former incarnation as a much more parliamentary-style body than it is now. At the heart of the General Medical Council—I am sure this is true of the much smaller and very distinguished current council—are strong and heartfelt debates about ethical matters. The GMC translates those ethical decisions made by the council into guidance for doctors. If you look at its website, you come very quickly to the guidance currently given to doctors on after-death care and organ transplantation.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that one of the most useful things he can do in his first few weeks on the GMC is to persuade it that that guidance needs to be expanded somewhat so that the section relating to cadavers, parts of which can be used for transplantation, are much more explicit and so that the genuine concerns about that area are addressed. When doctors breach such guidance, of course it should be treated as serious professional misconduct which can bring the most condign remedies against them. However, for doctors to know where they are in these matters, it needs to be set out more explicitly.
The ethical responsibility is laid firmly on the regulator, the GMC, which passes it on to doctors. I hope that the General Medical Council will recognise that what I hope will be the passing of this Bill and the creation of a new system in England as well as in Wales means that it must be very vigilant about the behaviour of doctors in this area. There have been some horrendous cases—such as the Alder Hey case, which has not been mentioned so far in this debate—that have made one a little cautious about presuming that doctors can always be assumed to behave with superb ethical judgment. Sometimes they fail, and they need a stronger regulator to protect the public and themselves from such failures. I add that one of the principles that was often discussed when I was on the GMC was the responsibility of doctors to report other doctors who fall below appropriate standards. That failure, too, can be serious professional misconduct.
With those slight reservations, I support the Bill strongly, and look forward to England, once again, following Wales.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, as always, it is an honour to speak here and to follow such knowledgeable contributors as we have heard today. I congratulate the honourable Member for Coventry North West from the other place on a well-targeted, balanced and proportionate Bill, and of course I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on bringing it before us today. After all, on such a sensitive subject as organ donation, when there is any action or intervention from the state or a change in policy, change must be proportionate, justifiable and properly communicated.
We have all heard about the virtues of “nudge economics”, and indeed have seen its success in areas such as the opt-out for workplace pensions, which has had such an impact on saving rates. But of course, organ donation is more sensitive than pension savings, so we must tread carefully. The Bill does so. It does not impact on children or minors, or those who have already opted in, and, significantly, it will not impact on those who have not consented where reasonable evidence can be presented by the family that they would not have wished to be a donor. It concerns only those who have thus far taken no action to specify their wishes. This is a proportionate approach, and I hope that those in any doubt can be persuaded by considering the consequences of the Bill.
Quite properly, the Bill focuses on the treatment of and the impact on donors and their families. However, the benefits will be felt by the recipient, and those benefits are nothing short of the gift of life itself. We have heard today that three people die every day waiting for an organ, and thousands languish agonisingly on waiting lists. Upliftingly, however, statistics from 2017 estimate that 50,000 people—I emphasise that—are alive in the UK today because of organ donation. This is the impact that changes in policy towards donors must be weighed against. But enacting this policy change—which I believe we must do—should be only the first step. It needs to be followed by communication and campaigns to highlight the benefits—the life-changing, even life-preserving, impact that organ donations can have. This is for two reasons.
The first reason is to raise awareness and bolster support for the changes in approach. Changing to an opt-out regime should not be seen as an opportunity to take people by surprise. Even if, as I hope, the default position changes to opt-out, we should still try to deliver a regime that is as close to informed consent as possible. Secondly, the object of the Bill is to increase the number of organs available for donation to help preserve life. It should be noted that, for example, the US has very high rates of organ donation under an opt-in regime, while Greece on the other hand languishes near the bottom of the league tables despite having a similar opt-out regime to the one we are proposing today.
My point is that policy change is the beginning, not the end. There are cultural factors at play that we need to understand and speak to if we are to achieve the ultimate aims of the Bill, which are to boost organ donation while treating organ donors fairly and with respect. However, I am optimistic. As we have heard, Wales has seen an increase from 58% in 2015 to over 70% in 2017, since it introduced the opt-out regime, which surely gives us comfort that the Bill will be impactful and will change lives, especially if it is accompanied by a national campaign that can preserve confidence in the regime and boost organ numbers still further.
The British Medical Association is in favour of this change. Its members see the tragic consequences and wasted life every day caused by the status quo—consequences that can be mitigated by the Bill before us today.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, at first sight this Bill is welcome and straightforward. It certainly is welcome, and appreciation is due to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and to all those who have promoted it.
I admit that my views are coloured by having been chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, dealing with associated but by no means identical matters. During my tenure, we had to deal with the Diane Blood case, where sperm was removed from her husband just before and just after his death without any consent. Of course, consent is absolutely central to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. The lack of consent was got around by referring in part to the European law on the free movement of goods and services, which apparently included sperm. Nevertheless, the removal of the sperm was a flagrant breach of the law. The law was re-emphasised in the later statute, which pointed out that one cannot take anything from a body, alive or dead, without consent. This Bill goes the other way. Of course, sperm is not an organ, but I thought I should refer again to this notorious case, which highlighted the importance of consent.
As has been said, the BMA supports the shift to an opt-out system. In Wales, which has an opt-out system, consent rates rose from 58% to 72% in the two years to 2017, albeit reflecting very small numbers. So I give a hearty yes to the principle, but with a few words of caution and support. The BMA calls for the appropriate,
“publicity and engagement with the public”.
It highlights the need to balance increased donation with,
“the wishes and autonomy of those who donate”,
and their families.
Somewhat surprisingly, the very expert Nuffield Council on Bioethics did not originally recommend a change to an opt-out system, because, as it said, there was a,
“lack of evidence that such a change alone would increase organ donation rates”,
and because of ethical concerns about the operation of the scheme. Now, the Nuffield Council, accepting the situation as it is in this Bill, emphasises how it can be made to work ethically. It says,
“it is vital to have measures in place that encourage people to express and document their wishes about organ donation during their lifetime”.
A free choice in this or any other field is only legitimate if people are well informed and aware of the significance of their choice.
The Nuffield Council further says that,
“information about the donation process must be easily accessible”.
It is not enough to have a publicity campaign when this Bill is passed. It needs to be maintained on an ongoing basis so that those who might donate, but are not thinking about it now, are as aware in the future as those who benefit from the publicity that will no doubt accompany this Bill’s success.
The Nuffield Council also says that families must,
“stay at the heart of the decision-making”,
process, and that their refusal of consent should be respected even where the deceased indicated a willingness to donate. To appear to have lower regard for the wishes of the family in their moment of bereavement would make their dilemma even more poignant and might make others suspicious of what might happen when a loved one dies.
The Nuffield Council suggests that a solution is to invest further in the network of specialist nurses for organ donation, who can support bereaved families. So the Nuffield Council is opening up the debate to the wider context and emphasising the need to maintain trust in the system. This is important when one recalls the Alder Hey scandal of retained organs 30 years ago, which led to the Human Tissue Act and dealt a serious blow to public trust in the handling of tissues and organs by hospitals—trust which has only now recovered and should not be risked again.
I should point out that one can also foresee legal disputes over the meaning of the provision in the Bill that there is no deemed consent where friends or family provide information that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the deceased would not have consented to donate in his lifetime. That is in Clause 1(4) inserting the new subsection (6B) into the Human Tissue Act 2004. Any legal delay in decision-making would necessarily be fatal to the successful removal of the organ, which has to be done swiftly. I envisage that any information brought forward at the time of death that the deceased might not have consented, reasonable or not, would act to stop the removal.
There were also concerns on the part of faith groups, which I believe have been successfully addressed and handled. The Government should be thanked for listening. In Judaism, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, said, there is nothing more important than saving a life. Religious strictures yield to that, and donating organs is invaluable. Jews and some other faith communities have a commitment to bodily integrity that extends through life to death. Therefore it is critical for them to retain an element of donor and then family control in the system.
The letter from Ms Doyle-Price, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention—what a bag of responsibilities she has—which the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, referred to, was sent to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, dated 25 October, and was very welcome. The Board of Deputies represents mainstream Judaism. In that letter, the Minister confirmed that the concept of deemed consent applies only in the absence of a decision by the deceased or their appointed representative to consent or not consent, and that the method for signifying non-consent is not limited by the Bill.
The letter also said that, if an individual cannot be identified or a person in a qualifying relationship cannot be found, the organ donation will not take place, since they have to be consulted. Individuals will also be allowed to consent to donate organs selectively or conditionally. And a new faith option will be included in the organ donor register, where organ donors can request that their faith is taken into account when organ donation is in issue; the text on the register will say, “I would like NHS staff to speak to my family and anyone else appropriate about how organ donation can go ahead in line with my faith or beliefs”; and appropriate agencies will engage with faith and minority communities in developing guidance that addresses those concerns.
This letter provided faith and minority communities with the comfort that the change in the organ donation system will respect beliefs while helping to save lives. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I ask the Minister to confirm that those assurances will be upheld.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on bringing this Bill through. I should declare an interest as a former transplant surgeon. I found kidney transplantation the most exciting operation that I did in my 50 years of surgery. Kidneys would be flown in from all over the place in order to try to achieve a good match. One would connect up the vein and then the artery and to my surprise I found that some of the kidneys would start peeing on the table immediately, which was wonderful, but I noticed it was only the French kidneys that did this. I asked what it was about these French kidneys, and they said, “It’s the French wine, you know”. Well, in fact there were other factors involved.
At present, around 6,000 people are on the UK transplant waiting list, and last year over 400 people died waiting for a transplant. With so much at stake, it is not surprising that the question of how the donation system should operate is a source of strong emotion. The increased public awareness of the great benefits of donation is to be welcome, but—and there is a “but”—I have been rather taken aback by the way in which the evidence of what works, even the facts about the current law, has been manipulated and inflated by the media, in parliamentary debate and even in the consultation materials themselves. I do not think this is the way to support and maintain trust in our transplant system, nor to demonstrate commitment to evidence-based policy.
The 2011 Nuffield report, Human bodies: Donation for Medicine and Research, which has been mentioned quite frequently, strongly supported organ donation,
“where this is in accordance with the wishes of the donor”,
but it did not advocate a change in the current law to the opt-out system. Nuffield concluded that,
“such a system could be ethical, as long as a number of potentially onerous criteria were met. People need to be fully informed in order to be able to make an active choice about whether or not to donate, which implies a long term and expensive commitment to public information and education. Families need to be appropriately involved—recognising not only that they are likely to have the best knowledge of their loved one’s attitudes to organ donation, but also that they themselves, in their bereavement, have a stake in what happens to the deceased person’s body. Critically, the system must operate in a way that ensures that public trust in the donation and transplant system is not undermined, for example through perceptions that the state is intervening to ‘take’ organs against family wishes. We only have to look back two decades to the outcry caused by tissue retention in the NHS to be alert to the way in which trust can be undermined, not least by failing to take into account the complex family and personal meanings associated with the body in death”.
In considering these questions of trust, the report also assessed, in more general terms, whether such a change in the law would increase donation. As it said,
“the quick answer is that no one knows. In contrast with the claims (confidently asserted over past months) that opt-out will save ‘thousands of lives’, the Department of Health’s own Impact Assessment, published alongside the consultation document, described the evidence on the impact of opt-out on donation rates as ‘inconclusive’ … Despite all the emotional rhetoric, the jury is still out on whether changing the law in this way will make any difference at all to the numbers of organs available for transplant”.
In beginning to assess the efficacy of presuming consent, we have to confront a misunderstanding about how donation works in England today. All too often, the assumption is made that only those who have signed the organ donor register are potential donors. Given that just 37% of the population in England have signed the register, it is thought that a shift to presumed consent will increase the pool of potential donors dramatically. Even if 10% of the public opt out, one would still increase the total pool of donors from 37% of the population to 90%. The difficulty with this logic is that it fails to appreciate that, at present, it is not only those who have signed the organ donation register who can donate. As Answers to Parliamentary Questions I tabled in July demonstrate, most donations in England at the moment come from families of people who have not left instructions about what they want done with their organs. To put the same point another way, at the moment, most organs are donated by people who have not signed the register. Critically, this means that clinicians in England are not limited to a pool of the 37% of people who have signed the register—they can approach the families of 99.3% of people. The missing 0.7% relates to those who have signed the opt-out register in England, and cannot be approached.
Rather than increasing the pool of potential donors, moving to informed consent reduces it. Whenever consent is presumed, some people take offence and sign the opt-out register. In Wales, prior to the instruction of its deemed consent law in 2015, there was no opt-out register, so 100% of people were potential donors. As a consequence of introducing presumed consent, however, 180,000 people, or 6% of the population, have now opted out. It is no longer possible for clinicians to talk to families about donation, when previously they could all have been approached. The organs of those 180,000 people are simply lost to the system. Rather than increasing the pool of potential donors, the introduction of presumed consent in Wales has involved spending public money to reduce that pool from 100% to 94%.
The truth is that, regardless of what system is operated at the point of donation, the key player is the family. Not having signed the organ donor register does not prevent doctors talking to the family about donation. Presuming the consent of the donor does not enable doctors to avoid talking to the family about consent. It makes no difference whether the donor had signed the register or had his consent presumed. At the end of the day, they will be unconscious, and the key conversation must take place between the clinicians and the family. In this context, the focus of our attention should be, as many speakers have said, on the family.
We know from the detailed reports published each year by NHS Blood and Transplant that the key factors associated with high consent rates are support for families by specialist nurses, and families knowing what the deceased person wanted. Consent rates are as low as 27.5% when families are not supported by a specialist nurse. They increase to 68% when a specialist nurse is involved, and to more than 90% where families are confident of the deceased’s wishes, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Ribeiro have already said.
This is consistent with the experience of Spain, which, as has been mentioned, has sustained the highest donation rate for more than 20 years. Rafael Matesanz, the leading light of the Spanish transplant system, ascribes the well-known successes of the Spanish system to its focus on efficient systems and excellent family support. He is on record as calling the opt-out system a “distraction”. Despite being classed wrongly by some as an opt-out country, Spain operates neither an opt-in nor an opt-out register, and relies entirely on family authorisation for the legal basis of donation.
The official evaluation of the Welsh law was published in November 2017, two years after it came into effect. It showed that if you compare the resident Welsh donor rate for the 21 months before the introduction of the new system with the 21 months since, far from increasing, the numbers fell slightly from 14.6 donation decisions per quarter to 13.4 donation decisions per quarter. This is less than encouraging. Admittedly things have since improved, but it will take at least five years to show any meaningful trend. In assessing that trend, it will be critical to allow for increased investment in specialist nurses in organ donation and critical care beds, which has nothing to do with presuming consent but will increase donation rates. The official evaluation concludes that longer period of time is needed to draw firmer conclusions about the impact of changing the law.
In the context of 400 people dying while waiting for a transplant, and when we do not have limitless public funds, I find the prospect of spending millions of pounds of public money on presumed consent rather concerning. Any money that we spend on presumed consent, for which we have no robust evidence of success, we cannot then spend on things that we know will increase donor donations. We should wait to see what happens in Wales and spend any additional monies on more specialist nurses in organ donation and more critical care beds. If the Government are determined to back this Bill, it will be imperative to limit the potential scale of withdrawal from donation by assuring people on the face of the Bill that their families will be properly consulted. This statutory guarantee of consultation must be genuine and not limited to simply giving the family a right to provide evidence that the family member did not want to donate, as in Wales.
Finally, I have another interest to declare. My daughter is a potential transplant recipient.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing this Bill forward, and for his excellent speech. We have heard moving contributions from across the House this morning. I want to thank the Government for their indication of support for the Bill. I also thank the noble Lords who chose to say kind words about me.
Of course, the important thing is that the greatest tributes must be paid to the donors and their families. There is, however, rare cross-party unity on this issue. That, you may think, is not surprising, because 80% of people say they would consider donation, but only 37% are on the donor register. Importantly, the percentage on the register from ethnic minority groups is a lot lower than that, and yet some of these groups face a greater than average likelihood of developing some of the illnesses that lead to the need for a transplant.
My party has supported this policy since 2002. At a personal level, I believe passionately that a system of presumed consent, a soft opt-out system, is the answer to addressing the gap between the number of donated organs and the number that we really need to save as many lives as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, indicated, I have some experience of this issue. As an Assembly Member in Wales, I was a member of the Health Committee. I was also spokesperson for my party on health issues in 2008 when the Kidney Wales Foundation and the BMA, together with other health groups, started to campaign for a system of presumed consent. I should declare that I was a trustee of the Kidney Wales Foundation from 2010 to 2012.
There was a well-co-ordinated campaign which had an impact on civic debate in Wales and on politicians in the Assembly. It led to the Health Committee deciding to do an inquiry. As part of that, we looked at evidence from across the world. We have heard a lot of statistics today but if you look at the evidence from across the world you will see that rates of donation vary considerably. But one thing you can draw out of it is that in countries with presumed consent, the rates tend to be higher than in countries without. When presumed consent is introduced, the number of donations increases over time as a percentage of the population.
As part of our inquiry, we also visited Madrid. Spain has been mentioned several times in this debate. There, we learned how soft consent works. We also learned that, as well as the legislation, you need the infrastructure to develop the system properly. You need improved training for staff as well as the best equipment. Meeting the clinicians, nurses and counsellors involved in the process in Spain had a huge impact and made us aware of the issues that we needed to tackle. In due course, after taking evidence from many groups, including patients and health campaigners, the Health Committee in the Assembly produced a report, which in fact at that point did not recommend a move to a soft opt-out system because some members were concerned that it might not be within the powers of the Assembly. These were early days for the Assembly and it was feeling its way.
Therefore, along with some other Assembly Members, we produced a minority report supporting a change to a soft opt-out system. Fortunately, the Health Minister at the time, Edwina Hart, was a lot bolder than some Assembly Members and decided to support the change, and she did excellent work in making it happen. It took a long time and years of consultation to get it right. The new Human Transplantation (Wales) Act was passed in 2013 but, even then, preparations took until December 2015, when the new system was eventually introduced.
I have some observations to make about that process. At the time, I was surprised at the extent to which the establishment—some in government and even some health organisations involved—closed ranks against the idea that the new Welsh Assembly could take such a radical path. It is a measure of how the debate has moved on—and I strongly welcome that—so that the Government now welcome it. In 2008, the Government’s Organ Donation Task Force, in its second report, unanimously opposed a change in the law. The UK Government have now accepted that the Welsh Government did indeed have competence to change the law. That happened during the coalition Government, when I was in the Wales Office, and it was not challenged.
In our original debates we were bolstered by the extent of the support from many faith communities. There were thoughtful contributions to the debate and overall support from faith communities. I very much hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle will study the Welsh experience in detail and look at exactly how much care was taken on the key and very important issues that he raised. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, is right that devolution in Wales made this a manageable initiative, with Wales being the first part of the UK to adopt the system. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was right to emphasise the extensive public information campaign, and there has been no backlash, as some predicted. In addition, I emphasise that the public information campaign came not just from the Government but from third sector organisations, so it involved not just public money.
The fundamental objection is the fear of coercion. That has to be addressed through thorough information and careful explanation. It is called a soft opt-out system for a reason. By convention in this country we have always put the wishes of the deceased and their next of kin at the forefront so, whatever the legislation in this situation, it is important that that care over the wishes of the deceased and their relatives continues. You cannot rely on the law alone; you need a big investment in intensive treatment units and many more trained nurse counsellors. The conversation prior to or at the point of death is difficult but crucial. We cannot expect clinicians to do it as an adjunct to their work. Their mission is to save lives. It is very difficult for clinicians to be working to save a life at the same time as talking to the family about the point after death.
Difficult conversations need to be had as well in preparation in advance of death, where that is possible. Along with this approach to individual cases, you need, as several people have mentioned, a big national conversation, a campaign to encourage people to tell their loved ones what they want to happen to their body after death. I do not know if noble Lords have had those conversations. My son came out and told me that he wanted to donate his organs but I found it very much more difficult emotionally to raise that issue with my daughter, and it was the public information campaign in Wales that made me feel that I had a duty to discuss these issues within the family. So the open conversation is really important.
Evidence from Wales is also there to say that people also talk about not allowing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, which is often something on which there is confusion. Our system in Wales is being widely commended within the medical world, and we have evidence of overwhelming change in that too.
I want to spend a moment or two on the outcome because it is difficult to keep up when the situation is changing so fast. The Wales studies, prior to legislation, allowed for a 19% opt-out rate. In fact, as we have heard, it has been very much lower at 6%. At the same time consent rates in Wales have increased from 58% in 2015 to 72% in 2017, compared with 65% in England. Specifically, consent rates for brain-dead donors are now 89%, and for donors after circulatory death, donation rates have increased from 53% in 2015 to 68% in 2018.
The donation of eyes is always a particularly sensitive issue, and there is worldwide evidence to show lower rates of donation on those. The deficit between the number of corneas being donated and the number of transplants needed is increasing rapidly; it has gone up by 157% in five years. However, by increasing the donor pool across the UK we should be able in the long term to address that shortage.
Overall Wales now has the highest rate of consent for organ donation in the UK. There is also a hidden factor here that I draw to noble Lords’ attention: organs cross borders. There is anecdotal evidence in Wales that additional donations have helped in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and indeed beyond, in the EU, to produce better outcomes. The number of organ donors has gone up, from 60 in 2015 to 74 last year, and 44 in the first six months of this year. Wales has a population of only 3 million, so the numbers are necessarily small.
It takes time to build the new system but I am delighted that it looks now that, thanks to the change in Wales, things have improved there. I am very pleased indeed that it now looks as though, thanks to this Bill, England has the chance of following in the footsteps of Wales. I urge those who will, I hope, have the responsibility of introducing a new system to look carefully at the procedures and experience in Wales. As several of your Lordships have said, deemed consent is not the whole answer, but it is the golden key to unlock the door. This is an excellent Bill because, most importantly, it retains the key principle that organ donation is a gift, and it must remain freely given.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I first congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on introducing this Bill and all noble Lords on an excellent debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, this is the place where we have these debates—sometimes they are painful, sometimes they are excellent and sometimes they are very enlightening. I also thank the Library and others who have given us such excellent briefings in preparation for this debate, including the British Heart Foundation, the BMA, Fight for Sight and many others.
I was heartened by many of the contributions we have heard today, including those from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who mentioned the issue of organ availability among BAME communities, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Chisholm, Lady Sater and Lady Finlay. As my noble friend Lady Crawley said, in a moving speech which I know was in part based on her family’s experience, the blessing of modern science, which allows lives to be saved, is not fully realised because of the lack of organs.
I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on her contribution—it is a pity that she is not in her place now—and I welcome the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle. I think I understood that the Church of England is now moving, as it ever does, in a slow and considered way, in what I hope is the right direction and ending up in the right place.
I particularly welcome the remarks of my noble friend Lord Elder, and his bearing witness to the successful outcome of organ donation, for which we are all—particularly those of us in the Labour family—very profoundly grateful.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, came close to suggesting that the Bill gives the state the right to take organs, but I do not believe that is the point of this Bill at all. I think, as many noble Lords have said, that this Bill is part of a process of shifting the debate, the commitment and the resourcing of organ donation as well as the thinking about what it means and how it should go forward. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on her pioneering work. Personally, I am very happy to follow Wales in this matter.
Without doubt, across the parties it has been agreed that the current law needs to be changed, and I believe that this Bill is the best first step forward in achieving the change we seek to move towards an opt-out system. With so many people who will benefit, it becomes difficult not to support this Bill and it is an honour to be able to support it. As my honourable friend Jon Ashworth said in the House of Commons, it is Labour policy, and I am very pleased to say that is the case. I congratulate Geoffrey Robinson MP and Dan Jarvis MP on the wonderful speeches they made in the Commons, and the Daily Mirror for its tireless campaign to bring about this change.
Like many noble Lords, I have been an organ donor for as long as I have been a blood donor and could sign the forms. All of my family are donors and we have discussed our wishes in this regard. This legislation will mean less ambiguity at what is probably the most stressful and sensitive time for family members. The idea that adults and children die waiting for an organ that could save their lives is painful and unnecessary. The gift of giving is part of our human condition. Following the death of my father-in-law, Henry Carr, I know that my family felt proud of and comforted by the fact that people benefited—at least two or three lives were transformed through the gift of organ donation.
Given that the Prime Minister and the Government have expressed support for legislation of this nature at various stages, I hope that the Minister can assure your Lordships’ House that the remaining stages of the Bill will take place early in the new year. Doing so will send a strong signal to the outside world and bring hope to many families across our country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, in congratulating noble Lords on a superlative debate on a vital and highly sensitive issue. It is a credit to this House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing the Bill to the House and presenting it in such an authoritative way. I also thank MPs in the other place, Geoffrey Robinson and Dan Jarvis, both for bringing the Bill forward and for their collaborative work with the Government on it. I thank them and everybody else who has worked so hard to get the Bill this far for their ongoing dedication.
As has been remarked, the passing of the Bill would mark a significant step towards transforming and saving the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the UK waiting for a life-saving transplant. As my noble friend Lord McColl said, what is at stake could hardly be more important. While we have made great strides in recent years, we can and must do better, as we were reminded by the moving story of the noble Lord, Lord Elder.
The Government are committed to the Bill. In October 2017, the Prime Minister committed to changing the current system of consent to shift the balance of presumption in favour of organ and tissue donation in England. Her position gained support from leaders of all parties and Members in both Houses, for which I am truly grateful. As I said, the Government welcome the Bill and support it wholeheartedly as an additional and necessary measure to address the tragic death rates due to the lack of organs and tissues available for donation. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, reminded us, public support for higher donation rates is already there, as it is among critical organisations in the healthcare family. Our job as legislators is to put in place a system that responds to public demand, but in an ethical, practical and effective way. I think that the Bill succeeds in this regard.
As has been said, the passing of this legislation is neither a silver bullet nor a magic wand, but I believe that it will play a significant role in changing the culture towards organ and tissue donation in England. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I pay tribute to Max Johnson and the family of Keira Ball. Max, whose plight captured the hearts and minds of the public and whose bravery has been remarked upon, was fortunate enough to receive the gift of life from nine year-old Keira Ball, whose family took the extraordinary and generous decision to transform and save the lives of others by making her organs and tissues available to those in need. We should never forget the importance of such gifts. I want to be absolutely clear that under the new approach set out in the Bill, organ donation will be a most precious and joy-giving gift, to use the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley.
NHS Blood and Transplant does tremendous work in recognising the generosity of donor families in various ways, including by awarding them the Order of St John. I reassure all noble Lords that celebrating donation will continue; it is an important aspect of making organ donation part of our culture. Enough gratitude cannot be given to families who, at a time of such grief, take the big-hearted decision to transform or save the lives of others. I assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle that, as I said, organ donation will always be a gift; that will remain the case. The decision of donation will remain: everyone will continue to be able to opt in or opt out of donation. To save more lives, we will still need more people to take the positive step of registering their decision to donate, so that if they die in circumstances where donation is a possibility, their organs and tissues can be made available to help those so desperately in need and the family can support that positive decision.
I should like to reflect on some important changes made to the Bill in the House of Commons where, as has been remarked, there was broad cross-party support. A set of amendments were made in the other place, including a power to remove novel forms of transplantation, such as faces and limbs, from the scope of the Bill. On this point, I want again to reassure noble Lords that the Bill will not change the list of organs and tissues currently considered standard donation. These are heart, lung, kidney, liver, pancreas, bowel, and tissues such as corneas, skin, bone and tendons. To ensure consistency with Wales and the proposal in Scotland, I confirm that for the rarer, more unusual types of transplants, known as novel transplants, as we will set out in regulations, there will continue to be a requirement for express consent to be given for donation to proceed.
If, following advice from medical experts and NHS Blood and Transplant, there is a need to update the list of novel transplants, we will consult on the relevant regulations, which will be laid under the affirmative procedure so that there will be full parliamentary scrutiny. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I can go further today and confirm that the Government will lay a Written Ministerial Statement after any changes are passed by Parliament to give absolute clarity on how regulations have been updated and what they mean in practice for deemed consent.
We all know that this change in the law is important, but it is not the whole story. Making sure that the public are aware of the change and of the importance of organ donation is the critical change. The consent system needs to be accompanied by a comprehensive public awareness campaign to give the public time to understand the changes, have a discussion with their family and make an informed decision about whether they wish to donate their organs and tissues. The Government will develop easy-to-understand material, kept up to date with information about the options, what organs and tissues can be donated and other details.
I take seriously the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lord Ribeiro about the importance of this campaign reaching the BAME community. A campaign on that front started in July but clearly, we need to do much more and have much greater opting in and awareness in these communities. We have had some success on this front with blood donation; we need the same kind of success in these communities with organs and tissues.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I can confirm that, following Royal Assent, working with charitable and other groups—and learning very much from the Welsh example—we will launch a 12-month communication campaign to support donation. The new system will go live in 2020, after the initial transitional communication campaign has ended. However, the Secretary of State will continue to uphold his duty to promote organ and tissue donation, as set out in the NHS Act 2006. We know that changing the culture around organ donation requires continuous engagement with the public and is not a one-off exercise. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that we are committed to follow-up campaigns in the years to come, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Randerson, whom I applaud for their extraordinary work in Wales, that we are keen to learn from the Welsh experience what works and what, if anything, we can improve on.
Another issue that noble Lords have raised is the importance of the family. As my honourable friend the Member for Thurrock highlighted several times during the Bill’s passage through another place, one of its important aims is to encourage everyone to think about what they want to do and talk to their friends and family about their wishes, so that they are left in no doubt about what their loved one would have wanted. As the noble Lord, Lord Elder, said, no consequence of the Bill could be more important.
Of course, some find such conversations difficult, but the benefit is that in the sad circumstances when a family is involved in discussions with the specialist nurse following a death, they do so in the knowledge that they are doing what their loved one would have wanted. Registering a decision on the Organ Donor Register is the best starting point for that conversation, and the most effective, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, reminded us.
When families have not spoken to their loved one about organ donation, they are much more likely to reject donation. Some families come to regret that decision when they realise that they could have helped someone who was still alive. But let me leave you in no doubt that, as now, there will always be a discussion with the family on the best way forward. To reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lady Chisholm and in reply to questions from my noble friend Lord Leigh and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech: no family will be forced to agree with the donation if they are strongly opposed to it. My noble friend Lord Lansley spoke from great experience about the importance of good guidance for staff when implementing this regime. I will turn to how we will deal with that issue shortly.
As has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Brady, I confirm that children under the age of 18 will be exempt from deemed consent. That does not mean that they cannot donate but, as is current practice, children of any age will be able to register if they wish to donate or not donate their organs; the parents of the child will always be asked about the child’s decision to donate.
A third issue raised today, and an extremely significant one, is the importance of working with faith communities. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, recognise that the Government have made concerted attempts to work with faith communities to build safeguards into the new system. We have announced various specific measures in the Government’s response to the consultation. For example, from next month, a new option on the organ donor register will allow those who register to ask that their family, or anyone else they wish, has a personal discussion with nurses and doctors about how donation can go ahead in accordance with their religious and cultural customs.
I can state categorically, to reinforce absolutely the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the state will not take control of anyone’s body as a consequence of this Bill. We will update the current codes of practice on organ and tissue donation for healthcare professionals; in doing so, we will set out how religious and cultural considerations will form part of the discussions with the family and we will involve the different faiths in its development. NHS Blood and Transplant will supplement this with training for healthcare professionals. That work is progressing well and I reiterate the Government’s commitment to working with all faith groups to make sure it is successful.
I mentioned the importance of a new code of practice to implement the new system that we hope to move to; that will be developed by the regulator, the Human Tissue Authority. The existing codes will be updated to reflect the changes and, for ease, we will pull them together in a single code, on which there will be a 12-week consultation period. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out that there will also be important implications for the professional regulators. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will also want to take that on board in the new role we are all pleased to see him playing.
The issue of the NHS’s capacity was raised by my noble friend Lady Sater and others. The Government recognise that it is absolutely necessary for the NHS to manage the increase in donations and to carry out these life-changing operations. My officials have already started early work on planning with NHS England and NHS Blood and Transplant to make sure that the system is ready for the changes. Following these discussions, NHS England will consider the financial and service commissioning implications, so that we have the capacity and expertise to benefit from increased donations.
I will address a couple of issues raised by my noble friend Lord Leigh and reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. They asked about the letter written by my honourable friend Jackie Doyle-Price explaining how the Bill would work. I emphasise that the letter is not a supplement to the legislation; it is an explanation of how the system of deemed consent will work in practice. The points that she set out on this hold absolutely. With their permission I would be delighted to share the letter with all noble Lords who are interested in the debate so that they can see the reassurances that we have provided. I believe it will provide some of the answers to questions raised in the debate.
My noble friend also asked whether the organ donor register should be given explicit legal consent. I do not think that is a necessity as the system has been working successfully for 30 years. The Secretary of State continues to have a duty under the NHS Act 2006 to make arrangements to facilitate tissue and organ donation. We believe the system is there; it is about using it to the maximum of its potential.
Before concluding, I will talk about the most important issue of all in getting this right, and that is staff. Specialist nurses for organ donation are highly trained professionals, usually from an intensive care or emergency medicine nursing background. When nurses join NHS Blood and Transplant, they initially receive extensive training over a six-month period. This covers all aspects of organ donation.
A key focus of the training is to enhance nurses’ skills in supporting acutely bereaved and grieving families, as this is an important, indeed essential, element of their role. When a patient has registered their decision to donate or when a family wishes to donate their loved one’s organs, the specialist nurse will skilfully and sensitively navigate the family through the detailed paperwork and mandatory medical history taking. When the family does not agree with the donor’s decision, the specialist nurse is trained to help the family come to terms with that decision. Experience from Wales tells us that this works and I can reassure noble Lords that we will make sure that there are enough highly trained staff to make the most of the changes resulting from this Bill. Our current estimate is that 27 more nurses would be required but, of course, if that number were to rise, we would make sure that they are fully trained and fully financed for the future.
The Government are confident that this piece of legislation will be pivotal in helping to transform and save hundreds of lives. Deemed consent in Wales is already showing promising results, with many more families now agreeing to organ donation when approached for this important discussion with specialist nurses. For those noble Lords concerned about the evidence base for change, we have seen in Wales, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, an increase in the number of deceased donors, from 60 in 2014-15 to 74 in 2017. Indeed, she talked about there being 44 in the first six months of this year. So there is evidence for its effectiveness, and our Chief Scientific Officer states in the impact assessment for the Bill that he can say with “moderate certainty”, that systems of opt-out, when introduced with a range of other support, such as logistical support, public awareness and so on, do increase donation rates.
I just pick up one point made by my noble friend Lord McColl on providing an opt-out in the Welsh system which in theory reduces the pool of potential donors. That means that, beforehand, there could have been donors who were having organs taken from them when they were not happy for that to happen. If anything, the Welsh system has provided greater individual autonomy while also increasing the number of donations. That seems to me to tick both the boxes that we would want for any system. The evidence for that is very powerful and gives us cause for hope and encouragement.
I conclude by reiterating the Government’s support for this Bill, congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on bringing it forward and thanking all other noble Lords for their excellent contributions. If any noble Lords have continuing concerns about any part of the Bill, I would be more than happy to meet with them to discuss it. The Government are very keen to make progress with this. There is of course a risk that, as the time towards the end of the session gets short, we will not manage that, which would be highly regrettable.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very authoritative response and to echo what he said about the time pressure that we face. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was surely right to describe as a very moving but also ethically and intellectually based debate. Where else indeed could we do it? I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his advice on the GMC. I realise I am not going to be short of advice, but I am in that glorious honeymoon period where I am not actually responsible yet. On 1 January, I might hide round some corners if I see the noble Lord coming.
This has been a very moving debate. Essentially, it is a celebration of the gift of donations to help others. I thought that my noble friend Lord Elder put so aptly what this really means to so many people in our country. It is also interesting that the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Lansley, said that they had changed their minds. I am in the same camp. I was responsible for organ donation between 1999 and 2003. I also had to deal with the aftermath of the Alder Hey debacle and I well remember some parents having to go through three or even four burial ceremonies as more organs and tissues of their children were found. I have therefore always taken a very cautious approach to this issue but, like the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Patel, I have become convinced that it is time to make a change. The evidence for presumed consent is stronger, I think, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for what she had to say. Public opinion has changed, and the infrastructure has improved immeasurably. We should acknowledge that in relation to capacity, transplant teams and specialist nurses, there have been very significant improvements. I welcome what the Minister said about future developments, particularly the increase in the number of these key specialist nurses.
All noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Chisholm, and my noble friend Lady Crawley—have emphasised that alongside the change, we need to have a public campaign. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said something which I thought was really important: no one should be surprised by the change. I think we should set that as our aim in the campaign. This is not a waste of money; this will have a big impact to the good on the public.
I echo what the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Ribeiro, said about the shortage of donors from black and minority ethnic communities. I welcome the campaign this summer; we just need to build on it. I also welcome the discussions with faith leaders and the assurances given by Ministers. I echo and endorse those assurances and the contents of the letter that the Minister referred to.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle expressed some concerns that this Bill will have the opposite effect to its intended one. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has grave doubts about the figures used for outcomes. Clearly, this is a significant step change; I acknowledge that. The right reverend Prelate thinks the balance between individual families and the state will be disturbed by it. It is a change, of course, but I believe that, with the safeguards, there is still balance in the provisions, and the change is being made in line with public opinion and the improvements in the infrastructure.
On organ trafficking, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, but I do not think this Bill is the right place to debate it. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, whose distinguished work in the area of human tissues is unequalled. I agree with her about the need to maintain trust. She referred to the Nuffield Council and its comments about how to make this work ethically; I agree with the points about easily accessible information, families being at the heart of decision-making and the network of specialist nurses. We heard a really reassuring view from the Minister about how that will be taken forward; clearly, we need to hold the Government to account on that.
As my noble friend Lord Elder said, this Bill is not a panacea. It will not, by itself, lead to a large increase in donations. However, it is a step change. It will help to raise awareness, encourage family conversations and change the culture, and that will lead to a higher consent rate in England. In that way, hundreds of lives will be saved. I am convinced this is the right way to go.
Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill
Friday 23rd November 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 View all Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 June 2018 - (20 Jun 2018)
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords I begin by declaring my interests as in the register and, in particular, as a part-owner, with my wife, of rented property. I am also currently chair of a working group for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which advises the Minister for Housing and Homelessness on regulation of estate agents and letting and managing agents.
It is a great honour to be piloting this important Private Member’s Bill through Your Lordships’ House. Its promoter in the other place has been the heroic Karen Buck, MP for Westminster North. She has been the most dedicated and committed campaigner, not just for this Bill, but for her many constituents with serious housing problems. Her desire to see the provisions of the Bill on the statute book comes from valiantly seeking to resolve hundreds, possibly thousands, of awful real-life cases of housing misery. I salute her for all her work and for successfully taking the Bill through the other place. I also pay tribute to Giles Peaker and Justin Bates, two lawyers with extensive and highly relevant experience, who have worked tirelessly to draft and perfect the Bill. I commend the Government for having the good sense to give the Bill their full support.
The Bill comes to us with backing from all quarters including, prominently, those bodies representing both landlords—the National Landlords Association and the Residential Landlords Association—and tenants, such as Shelter, Generation Rent and others. As Alan Ward, chair of the Residential Landlords Association, has written:
“The Bill seeks to achieve what we all want: better enforcement of existing laws and regulations against ... the criminals who bring the sector into disrepute”.
It seeks to improve housing conditions for those living in circumstances that can well be described as unfit for human habitation. The public at large may think that slums are a thing of the past and that, if any still exist, there are plenty of laws and regulations to force recalcitrant landlords to bring them up to minimum standards. Sadly, neither of these assumptions is correct. There are around 1 million households forced to live in so-called non-decent properties. The English Housing Survey of last year recorded 750,000 properties which present a,
“serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety”,
with 225,000 in the social housing sector. Yet the law is woefully inadequate in compelling the owners of these properties to bring them up to standard.
Karen Buck has quoted many examples from her own constituency. One tenant living with her partner and two children writes that her son has been,
“in a coma at St. Mary’s hospital due to a virus caused by excessive cold. The mould and damp in the house”,
says this tenant,
“turns our clothing, toothbrushes and cups black. I cannot begin to explain how many hospital visits we have had”.
Another tenant complains about her,
“freezing cold, smelly, damp, mouldy flat”.
and says,
“the cold aches my bones and muscles. The damp and mould affects my asthma. As a type 1 diabetic and asthmatic I am constantly ill living in this flat”.
She concludes:
“I guess the way they are progressing, it will be done the day I am being removed from this flat in a coffin”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/10/18; col. 536.]
These cases demonstrate not only the hardship caused by bad housing conditions but the cost of this to the NHS and wider society.
The Bill addresses the need for a serious overhaul of current legislation in England. Separate measures apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland and, for the most part, in Wales too. It addresses the current legislative inadequacies in three key ways. First, it makes it clear that it is not lawful to let substandard property. Currently, there is indeed a requirement in law, in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which consolidated much earlier legislation, for privately rented homes to be “fit for human habitation” at the beginning of a tenancy and to be maintained at this level. But this requirement has ceased to have effect because it covers properties only with rents below a limit set many decades ago—a rent limit of £52 per annum, or £80 per annum in London. The Bill would remove this wildly outdated constraint, obliging landlords to ensure that all properties are fit for human habitation, with no exceptions, based on a rent limit.
With the offence of letting an unfit property restored once more, tenants would have the chance to take an offending landlord to court. This constitutes a significant change in the landlord/tenant relationship. Currently, tenants cannot take direct legal action themselves and are entirely reliant on their local authority to serve environmental health enforcement notices on the landlord and to enforce these. With local authorities short of funds, few have found it possible to take such action on any scale: in 2016-17, half of all councils served no such notices, or only one. The position changes radically with this Bill affording tenants the right to take action themselves and, on their own behalf, enforce their right to a safe and healthy home.
Secondly, the Bill addresses the problem of defining what “fit for human habitation” means. It does not add any new regulations or requirements on landlords but simply draws together all the existing obligations in this regard: the nine criteria used in the 1985 Act and the key health and safety features covering the core hazards used in the current housing, health and safety rating system—HHSRS—brought in by the Housing Act 2004. The Bill, therefore, consolidates and clarifies what constitutes an unfit property.
It is true that the HHSRS has itself been criticised as too complex and open to varied local interpretation. However, the Government have undertaken to review and revise it next year and the Bill’s definition of fitness will take on board, without further legislative action, any changes made to the HHSRS.
Thirdly, for the first time, the Bill gives the same rights to tenants of local authorities to insist on the fitness of their property as tenants of private landlords. At present the local authority, as the enforcement body, cannot take action against itself, which leaves council tenants powerless in this respect. The Bill enables these tenants to compel their local authority to carry out the works needed for the property to meet proper standards.
Moreover, thanks to an amendment to the Bill in the other place, its provisions cover health and safety hazards in shared areas and communal spaces in blocks of flats. As we all know from the ghastly tragedy of Grenfell Tower, there are apartment blocks where tenants are exposed to serious dangers. The residents of Grenfell Tower raised their concerns about the safety of the building on many occasions, but their voices were not heard and they had no means of forcing their landlord to take action. This Bill gives council tenants, like private sector tenants, the power to take their case straight to the courts.
The vast majority of landlords and tenants will be unaffected by the measures in the Bill but it will redress the obvious imbalance in a market where acute shortages currently favour the provider at the expense of the consumer. The Bill empowers all tenants by replacing a now defunct legal obligation on the landlord with a real, enforceable obligation. It defines what the legal obligation covers for homes to be fit for human habitation and extends that obligation to council landlords as well as private ones. In every respect, this is a valuable and commendable legislative measure.
Will the Bill mean an end to the problems faced by tenants in the private rented sector? No—it is limited in scope and there remains much to do. Now that Westminster and Whitehall have begun to catch up with the phenomenal change in the scale of private renting and the effects of this on millions of households in this country, there is a new willingness to bring forward a range of legislative changes.
The Government have started with action against rogue landlords: fining and banning the criminals; laws against retaliatory evictions; the enforcement of electrical safety measures; an extension of licensing for houses in multiple occupation; the ban on tenant fees, which we are currently debating in your Lordships’ House; the regulation of property agents; an exploration of longer tenancies and the possibility of new housing courts; the creation of an ombudsman for complaints against landlords; and more.
Sadly, these changes do not include restoring full legal aid to enable tenants fighting cases about unfit property to claim damages. Nor have the Government yet agreed to reverse the reductions, in real terms, to housing benefit. The current caps and cuts mean that many tenants face real poverty because they have to cover a rental shortfall from their meagre income from other benefits. But these are matters for other government departments and another time.
Meanwhile, this Private Member’s Bill—a great example of cross-party co-operation in the cause of social justice—takes pride of place amid the other new measures to upgrade the private rented sector. It is a particularly valuable piece of the whole because it gets to the heart of the matter. It addresses the key issue of whether the product on offer— the house or flat for rent—is fit for purpose and, if not, it empowers the tenant to get that sorted.
I close by underlining the deep appreciation of all of us with an interest in housing matters for the dedication, compassion and commitment of this Bill’s parent, Karen Buck. I hope noble Lords will give it a very fair wind. I beg to move.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Best for piloting this limited but important Bill through the House of Lords. As he said, we are also particularly grateful for what he rightly described as the heroic efforts of Karen Buck, the Labour MP for Westminster North, for conceiving of this Bill and taking it through the other place highly successfully. I had 31 years in the other place and in all that time never managed to get a Private Member’s Bill through, so I know how successful she has been in doing that.
The Bill, as my noble friend said, also has the support of Shelter, the Landlords Association and, most importantly, the Government. I am glad to see the Minister in his place listening attentively, as he always does. Indeed, the degree of cross-party support on this might have been a feature of other arguments we are having on a wider scale at the moment, but sadly Brexit does not seem to be producing that degree of understanding.
It is truly appalling that we have 1 million families—2.5 million to 3 million people—living in private or social rented accommodation with category 1 hazards. As my noble friend Lord Best said, category 1 properties pose a serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety. Although part of this problem is in the social sector, as was tragically revealed by the Grenfell incident, most of it is in the private sector. Three-quarters of the people living in this category are in the private rented sector.
We simply have really inadequate old properties badly renovated to low standards, often by absent landlords seeking to maximise their income by splitting an old house into as many small spaces as possible and then not maintaining it properly. This is the real issue here. In many ways, housing benefits contribute to this problem and make it more difficult to make the necessary renovations. My memories go back to the Rachman period in the 1950s, and of course Karen Buck represents in Parliament the North Westminster area—and previously represented Kensington North—where that was evident. It still exists in our big city areas.
It is also a problem in seaside resorts. Many of us got in the post today the excellent agenda 2030 brochure put forward by the pride of place team from Blackpool. I know Blackpool well; I was born in Preston, not far away. Blackpool has eight of the 20 most deprived neighbourhoods in the country and much of that is property of this kind. What were once bed and breakfast hotels have now been converted into appallingly low-standard accommodation of the kind we are concerned about.
The Bill will extend the definition of what is fit for purpose—that is, fit for human habitation—and will also extend people’s right to take a bad landlord to court, but the truth is this is just a Bill and a very restricted Bill. We need far more if we are going to deal with this problem satisfactorily.
As was pointed out in the letter that many of us will have got from the leader of Blackpool’s pride of place project:
“Many of the tenants living in the private rented sector … are vulnerable, lead chaotic lives and would lack the confidence to commence legal action against their landlord. For the proposed legislation to be used effectively by tenants, extra resources would need to be made available to local authorities or voluntary sector advice agencies, like the Citizens’ Advice Bureau or Shelter to support the most vulnerable tenants in taking their landlords to Court”.
I know that well from my own constituency experience, both in Gateshead and in Orpington. People in this category do not think of going to a solicitor. They lack the confidence to do that, they have no contacts and their first thought is to go the CAB, their local council or a Member of Parliament. We need resources for those voluntary agencies to help them effectively. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, touched on in the latter part of his remarks, this is part of a wider issue with housing, not just related to substandard private rented property, which we have to tackle.
I made the point in my speech in the Budget debate that this is part of the poverty issue that so disfigures our country at the moment. It exists, and we have the resources to do something about it. It will mean raising taxation, but we should not forget that we are a comparatively lightly taxed country. We only take about 35% of our national income in taxation. In Germany it is 39%, in the Netherlands it is 41% and in France it is 47%. That is the difference between this country and other neighbouring European countries, and the extent to which we can tackle these problems because we have the resources to do so. It could be done if we had the willingness to raise taxation. In this case, for example, we could probably put a couple of extra layers on the council tax for higher, more expensive property to raise the money to give councils the funds to deal with this problem.
I wholeheartedly support the Bill and hope it goes through unamended. I also wish my noble friend on the Front Bench well, because I know his heart is in the right place, in his and his colleagues in the department’s discussions with the Chancellor, because I believe that the Chancellor has to provide the funds to deal with this aspect of poverty as well as other aspects. I hope they will be forthcoming in the next Budget. They were a little in the last Budget, but we need a far bolder and more radical approach in the next Budget.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, good Bills on housing are like buses: you wait ages and then three come along at roughly the same time. This Bill, the Tenant Fees Bill and the Homelessness Reduction Act have all provided an opportunity for me to stick my hand out and happily climb on board.
I recall one of the first meetings I had when I came to this place in 2013, sponsored by my noble friend Lord Tope. It was a meeting with Shelter and Electrical Safety First about this very issue. Both organisations have campaigned for this change for many years. The horror stories they put before us were compelling. The solution they presented was almost simple—reviving a clause from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requiring all rented homes to be “fit for human habitation”, a clause long defunct because the rent levels were no longer relevant, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Best.
I say “simple” but, as we all know in this place, nothing is ever simple. I therefore congratulate Karen Buck MP on her excellent Bill, the Government on giving it time and technical support, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, on carefully guiding it through this place with—we hope—no amendments.
Karen Buck MP is a fellow vice-chair of the APPG for the Private Rented Sector and has regularly updated her colleagues on that group, for which I thank her. She tried to get this Bill first in 2015, and then we all tried to amend the housing Act in 2016 to include these proposals. The superb addition to include social tenants is a real credit to her hard work and determination to ensure that all renters do not have to live in homes that are a real hazard to their health and well-being. Any of us who has been an activist in some of the more challenging areas in the UK with high levels of social rent are only too well aware that it is not just the private sector that has horror stories about poor conditions. I note, however, that the English Housing Survey shows social rented housing as the lowest percentage across all tenures of non-decent homes. It is yet another strong argument for more social housing—which we have debated many times and will continue to do. Another welcome addition is the extension to communal areas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out, the backing of the Residential Landlords Association and the National Landlords Association is excellent news. The good news for the landlords they represent is that all landlords who are good landlords need do nothing at all when this Bill comes into effect. But those 1.3 million social and private rented properties that are deemed a hazard under the housing health and safety rating system will be expected now to have to raise their standards.
The Bill rightly places greater powers with those who rent, without having to rely on their local authority. It treats people who rent like the consumers of a service that they are. I guess my regret is that this has come late when the impact has been significant for up to 3 million people, including children, who have had to live with damp, infestation, live wires in dangerous places and more, with little or no hope of changing that. The health impact is well known and estimated to cost the NHS £1.4 billion every year. I am sure that other noble Lords will share in the collective sharp intake of breath when they recognise that, according to Shelter, if these rights had been in place, particularly in communal areas—so that tenants could go to court regarding missing fire doors, emergency lighting, sprinklers and other safety devices—the anecdotal evidence is that more tenants’ lives tragically lost in Grenfell Tower might have been saved. Of course, we are still waiting for the inquiry to conclude.
So, what future buses, or Bills, are we still waiting at the stop for? The now chronic shortfall in housing benefit, which does not cover rents in 95% of the country, must be addressed. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Horam, on that.
In order for this particular Bill to be effective, greater effort must be made to underpin the original intentions of Sarah Teather MP’s Private Member’s Bill in 2014 to stop retaliatory evictions through Section 21. While an amendment to the Deregulation Act 2015 was the best way of trying to achieve that, more needs to be done in this area so that tenants can complain about poor conditions. Evidence to the HCLG Select Committee inquiry suggests that retaliatory evictions in the private rented sector are still a problem. A Citizens Advice survey in 2017 found that nearly three in five renters entitled to compensation did not force the issue because of fear of eviction—and half said they feared a rent rise if they did.
Security of tenure will help to underpin the good work of this Bill. Scotland’s introduction of indefinite security of tenure is now one year old, and I would like to hear the Minister’s view of how that significant change is going. Does he believe it has had an impact and would he consider something similar here? Shelter has recommended three-year tenancies as an effective way of underpinning the Bill we are debating today. Can the Minister update us on the Government consultation on three-year tenancies, which finished in August 2018?
Sufficient resource for legal aid is essential, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Shipley will develop this point. I will wait to hear the Minister’s response on that. Likewise, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Tope will ask about the extraordinary foot-dragging on the introduction of a timetable for mandatory electrical checks.
I was particularly struck by the phenomenon of older renters, raised in a briefing by Independent Age. The changing nature of tenure in the UK means that we are now seeing larger numbers of older people renting privately. The need for accessibility standards and adaptations is something that this Government would do well to anticipate in policy before it becomes a significant problem. More than half of older renters live alone and almost three-quarters have a disability or an illness. Given the predictions for the private rented sector and population, this problem will become more acute. Will the Minister tell us whether there are any plans to look in particular at this phenomenon?
I thank the Minister for his letter of last night and the update on a public database of rogue landlords, which we will discuss when parliamentary time allows. It will be no surprise for him to hear that, on these Benches, we are a little frustrated given that we gave him ample time and opportunity to do that, both in my Private Member’s Bill on tenants’ rights in 2016 and during the passage of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. When parliamentary time allows, and as I said in my Oral Question of 13 November, I will return to a possible model for this open register—that of the food hygiene ratings. It operates in a commercial sector and empowers consumers. If we can measure where we eat, we can measure where we live, and have an open register for that.
That said, we on these Benches are delighted to welcome this Bill and the time the Government have allowed now. We look forward to seeing it progress to Royal Assent with as much speed as possible, so that, finally, tenants can say no, with strong legal back-up, to the appalling conditions they have been condemned to for so many years.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his advocacy of this Bill in your Lordships’ House and for his customary detailed and lucid comments in introducing the debate. I also salute the indefatigable work of the Member for Westminster North, who has already been referred to, and look forward to what we all hope will be a positive response to this debate from the Minister.
Like many others, I am very supportive of any efforts to improve and assure the quality of accommodation in the rental sector, whether that be individual, corporate or social landlords. I did, however, have a slight moment of hesitation about speaking on this, as I became conscious that the Church of England, in its various national and local corporate guises, is a not inconsiderable landlord.
Clergy housing is often let short term during parish vacancies; these are the properties of the parishes and dioceses, and are let to provide income. Rather akin to the agricultural workers referred to in the Bill, there are some 7,000 or more clergy who receive housing as part of their remuneration, and are thus in a quasi-tenant relationship with Church corporate bodies. They are, I think and hope, not in need of the provisions in this Bill because, in perhaps an extremely rare instance of the Church being ahead of the game, the Repair of Benefice Buildings Measure 1972 laid on diocesan authorities a duty not unlike that in this Bill, and was reaffirmed by the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure 2009. That said, I fear that there may be instances where Church authorities and Church-related bodies could do better. I welcome the fact that this Bill will, as I understand it, apply to those corporate bodies when they let residential properties to tenants other than the clergy. If those bodies are not already ensuring that their let properties are of the best possible standard, this Bill will help to make sure that they do.
More generally, I welcome the provisions of this Bill that make clear the implied covenant within a tenancy and those which seek to clarify and extend the definition of “fitness for human habitation”. Reference has also been made to the right of tenants to take action, not being dependent on local authorities to do so. That is an important provision, though I will refer to a slight proviso around that.
Clearly, as has already been indicated, not least by the noble Baroness, this will bring no added burden for those landlords who already make this a priority and operate in the best possible way. Indeed, the safeguards built into the Bill relating to those matters which are not a landlord’s responsibility also help to clarify this and, I hope, reassure landlords.
An anecdote of good practice by a landlord came to me unexpectedly on my journey here this morning. My train was, for reasons I do not yet understand, curtailed at Denmark Hill and never reached Victoria, so I shared a taxi with a gentlemen who, when he discovered I was to speak in this debate, told me how he sought rental accommodation for his son, who was having a year out from university on a work placement and needed to find accommodation. He told me of taking over the tenancy of a flat, and it being very clear that the landlord and his entire family had spent most of the night before cleaning and redecorating the property to hand it over in an absolutely immaculate condition. We know that many landlords operate in that particular way; our concern is those who do not.
Noble Lords will be aware that we have to legislate for those who do not act in the best way for the common good and for the good of human kind. Many of us will be aware of instances where standards of rental accommodation fall below what is right and proper in a society such as ours. Sadly, that may particularly apply to housing which accommodates those among the most vulnerable in our society—those whose desperation, or lack of alternatives, mean that they take whatever they can, even if it is unfit. As Bishop to Her Majesty’s Prisons, I have a particular concern about those who have been released at the end of a custodial sentence. The provision of housing for them is a particular challenge in our society. They are among those who often end up in housing which is frankly appalling, but it is all that is available.
Even in the student sector, one still hears tales about overcrowding and below-standard accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to properties with mould, which affects people’s health and well-being. Without naming names, as a former board member of housing associations over some 30 years, I have in the past visited housing association properties which have been infested by mould. That is not how it should have been. For myself and my fellow board members, I hope we took that seriously and did something about it.
The empowerment of tenants to take action, with a clear right to do so if this Bill passes, is an important area already referred to. We are in an economic situation where we find real financial pressures on institutions such as community law centres, and where, thank goodness, many lawyers still offer pro bono services. If tenants—particularly vulnerable tenants—are to be able to make use of the provisions here, then we need to look at that whole area. I know this lies outside the scope of this Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Horam, has already referred to it—I was intrigued by his comments about taxation and welcome them—but this is an area that needs to be looked at if people are to be able to exercise the rights given to them under this Bill.
The place where we live is one of the key contributors to human well-being or, in some instances sadly, the lack of it. For all to have the realistic prospect of a decent home is surely not beyond us in this society. The Bill, albeit limited in scope as others have mentioned, will make a valuable contribution to that in a particular sector of housing provision, and I welcome it.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I join everyone in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Best, for introducing this Bill in this House. I join him and everyone else in the tributes paid to Karen Buck MP for her indefatigable work and for promoting this Bill in the other place.
I must declare some interests. First, I am one of the many vice-presidents of the Local Government Association. I am co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London, and I am a patron of Electrical Safety First, a charity whose name is self-explanatory. All those bodies and I welcome this Bill, support it entirely and wish its speedy enactment in due course.
Let me start with electrical safety, which my noble friend Lady Grender has already trailed for me. I am going to ask the Minister when the Government intend to introduce the five-yearly mandatory electrical safety checks. After years of campaigning for this, they finally announced in July this year that they would do so. In his letter yesterday, the Minister used the time honoured phrase that they would do so, “when parliamentary time permits”. I have been here long enough to know that the Minister will say he is not responsible for the allocation of parliamentary time, so I will not ask him when parliamentary time will allow. May I ask him when his ministry hopes and expects that legislation to be introduced? Is it shortly? Is it in due course? Maybe it is as soon as possible. Can he give some indication that it really is a priority, at least in his department, if not yet, sadly, for his Government?
May I also ask the Minister to clarify, when this Bill is enacted, whether landlords will actually be prevented from renting a property where there are no records of electrical safety checks? As I understand it—and the Minister will know better than I do—it is the intention of the Welsh Government not to allow landlords who cannot prove evidence of an electrical safety check to be able to rent out a property. Is that also going to be the case in England?
On perhaps a more positive note, Electrical Safety First commissioned York University to undertake a research project on the state of electrical checks in the social rented sector. The research found that the social rented sector has a lower proportion of properties that require electrical repairs than any other housing tenures, and properties in the social rented sector are far more likely to have modern electrical safety devices present. This is the case especially with properties owned by housing associations, which have the highest proportion of homes built after 1990. The researchers found, too, that councils and housing associations are doing a much better job in maintaining fitness-for-human habitation standards in terms of electrical safety, probably due to the decent homes standard. They found that the majority of social housing providers voluntarily conduct checks at five-year intervals already and support mandatory checks. However, if the Government intend to legislate for electrical safety checks in the private rented sector, will the Minister confirm that it will also include the social rented sector?
I turn to London and London Councils, where I have some interest and responsibility. In London, the capital city, private renting is the fastest growing housing tenure. It is estimated that, by 2026, 1.4 million dwellings in the capital city will be private rented. That sector is dominated by small-scale landlords. Sadly, we all know that there are far too many documented concerns about poor management standards.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, who I think used to represent Orpington. He gave examples of some inner-city places, and I think Blackpool and other seaside resorts, all of which are sadly well known for such cases. I wanted to give an example that was given to me in my own borough, the London Borough of Sutton, by the chair of our housing, economy and business committee—I always have to think about that title. It is a borough where the council has had majority Liberal Democrat control for nearly 33 years, so I take no pride from giving this story. It is a property very close to where I live, but perhaps more relevant, it is less than half a mile from the green-belt border with Surrey—the leafy part of London, apparently. My former colleague said to me that she had come across a family of two adults and three children in a privately rented flat with two bedrooms and a reception room, in a 1960s-built, tall block of flats. From the outside, which I pass every day, it looks perfectly good and decent, but as well as being overcrowded, the state of disrepair in this place is, as my friend who has seen it described, appalling. Electrical fittings do not work and bespoke heating that has been set up as the underfloor heating is too expensive for the family to use. There are wires trailing everywhere. The oven supplied by the landlord works poorly; the smoke alarms do not work at all. There is mould and insect infestation. The family have lived there for 12 years and repeatedly asked for repairs. Although the landlord sends someone round to have a look, nothing happens.
This example, and sadly there are all too many, from the leafy part of outer London, is now drawn to the attention of the chair of the housing committee, and of course action is now being taken. But none of us looking at the outside would have been aware of that. It is not the image that is presented of much of outer London, and yet it exists—I am sad to say—nearly as much in outer London as it does perhaps in Blackpool or in Paddington.
London Councils says that it believes boroughs need to be empowered and given adequate resources to help improve protection of private tenants. It makes the point that London boroughs have suffered a 63% reduction in government funding between 2010 and 2020. It also says that councils should have local licensing powers and be allowed to recoup costs of enforcement against rogue landlords.
Finally, the penultimate paragraph of the Minister’s letter to us yesterday said that the short guidance document for tenants will be published as soon as the Bill has completed its passage, to explain their rights and how to represent themselves in court if necessary. I strongly welcome that. Part of the York University research I mentioned found that consumers are being left behind in their awareness simply of their rights and opportunities, never mind the difficulty they will always experience—and some particularly so—in exercising those rights, if necessary, through the courts. Will the Minister confirm that this guide will include specific reference to electrical safety? If it does not, he can rest assured that he will be hearing more about it from me, and I am sure from other noble Lords in this House. That said, I wish this Bill a swift passage through your Lordships’ House, and a rapid enactment as well.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Best on bringing this Bill to the House and Karen Buck on all the work that she has done in another place. I referred in the previous debate to some of the singular peculiarities of your Lordships’ House. Perhaps I should have said the peculiar advantages, for we have had two Second Readings each presented by a true expert in the field that each Bill covers. I know that my noble friend has given a great part of his life to quality and safety of housing, and the issues covered in the Bill. He is highly regarded, particularly throughout the architecture profession and by housebuilders.
I declare an interest: I happen to be chairman of the not-for-profit company Design for Homes, which organises the housing design awards each year. One of the purposes of those awards is to reward not only the beautiful, but large-scale housing that provides safe spaces in good-quality environmental conditions for families, particularly in mixed communities, where people seem to flourish best.
I can say from my experience as a lawyer and sitting as a part-time judge as a recorder in county courts, and, indeed, in the criminal courts, that I have seen the dangers presented by bad housing. One can truly observe that crime, child abuse, respiratory disease and mental illness are all caused—I mean caused—by poor-quality housing and poor housing maintenance. Anybody who is in a caring profession, such as the right reverend Prelate, if he will forgive me for describing his calling as a caring profession, sees that on an everyday basis. I have been involved in some safeguarding inquiries relating to abused children. The effect of poor housing has been all too obvious.
May I be allowed one anecdote? My noble friend Lord Best referred to local authorities. He is absolutely right. Local authorities are sometimes just as much to blame as private landlords. On one occasion I was sitting as a recorder in a central London county court. A woman who had a disabled son of some 20 years had been living without any heating or hot water for two years in her council flat, which was owned by a south London council that I will not name. In the end, a solicitor came to court pro bono to try to get something done. The local authority’s housing director’s answer was that he or she was unavailable that day because they had meetings and could the case be adjourned. My reaction was, “Yes of course, I’ll adjourn the case until 2 o’clock and if he or she doesn’t turn up then there will be a warrant for their arrest”. Of course they turned up, but why should that mother and that disabled young man have had to have gone through months of difficulty and come to an intimidating county court, with wigs, gowns and the rest of it, to get their hot water and heating repaired—the ordinary requirements of life, particularly for that disabled young man? It just should not happen.
I echo something the right reverend Prelate said in this context. It is disgraceful that people who face low-quality housing conditions below fitness for human habitation cannot obtain legal aid to ensure that they get their rights. If they are given legal aid and the landlord has not provided the necessary facilities, the landlord has to pay the costs. I would have thought that this is an area in which legal aid should be glaringly and obviously available.
If I could stray on to the grass verge on the margin of this Bill, I will say something relating to my chairmanship of Design for Homes. We note that, under Sir Roger Scruton, the Government appointed what is called the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. This Bill does exactly what it says on the tin, but one has to read that commission’s title with great caution. It seems that the Government have fallen into the trap of appointing “taste tsars” who seem to believe that the bypass variegated, as Osbert Lancaster called it, of old represents the best quality housing and that modernist architecture has no place. Some of the best housing we have seen in the housing design awards—I have been involved for several years now—has appeared in modern, contemporary-looking buildings, which have certain obvious advantages. They have large windows so that you can see what you are doing without having to turn the lights on; they have modern efficient heating systems which do not necessarily take up wall space; and so on. I invite the Minister and the Government to link with the purpose of the Bill: the need to be broadminded about architecture and not be lectured to by people who think they have a monopoly of good taste, particularly when they expressly and explicitly reject best modern practice.
There are many examples where one would not necessarily expect it of poor housing which is not kept in good repair by landlords. In rural areas, many small cottages are let by large estates which spend as little as possible on maintaining those properties. There are more cottages without inside lavatories in the rural areas of England and Wales, at least, than in the urban areas of England and Wales. That requires attention.
Many in this House have had children at universities and we have all seen, in some quite distinguished university cities, terrible accommodation in which landlords simply do not carry out the repairs. They are able to let the properties six months before the tenants move in because there is such demand for them, and if you deliver your student children to those properties you find despicable states of repair. On one occasion recently I had to go out to a supermarket to buy 24 lightbulbs so that one could see anything happening in the students’ accommodation. That was in one of our great university cities. This area needs attention.
As to young working singletons, there have been grants of planning permission, particularly in the London boroughs, in which office premises have been turned into small and inadequate flats and flatlets. One can almost predict what they will be like in five or 10 years’ time because they are plainly unsuited to that kind of conversion. I can understand the reasons why local planning authorities give consent in those cases—it brings properties quickly into residential use—but you are asking for trouble if you do that unless you impose, as a local authority, proper conditions so that those buildings are big enough, clean enough and properly serviced for the future, otherwise you are perpetuating the Rachmanism to which the noble Lord, Lord Horam, referred.
With those thoughts in mind, I strongly support the Bill. It is high time that it was enacted and I hope we will see strong government support for it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I join the debate on the Bill because I am very interested in the subject and have always strongly supported Karen Buck, who has done a marvellous job.
I do not agree with the view of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Tope, that the good thing about the Bill is that people will be able to take their issues straight to the courts. We should have a return to the leasehold system, under which people did not require special measures to get their legal fees paid. The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal did a huge amount of good. There should be an ombudsman to deal with matters prior to people going to court—they could be dealt with more quickly—and court should be a second choice only if the first one does not work. That issue needs thinking about.
My noble friend Lord Horam mentioned properties being split into units as small as possible. I agree particularly that action is needed on these.
Something that has not been mentioned, and here I must declare my interest on the register, is the abuse of the letting system whereby holiday lets are taking over a lot of property in London. The Mayor of London has commented on the great loss of accommodation. I would like to see powers returned to local authorities to determine whether or not people are entitled, and at least to be able to check how many people are living in these places. As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, there are three one-bedroom flats in the block that I have concerns in, and 10 people are bussed in for one or two weeks’ holiday. Sometimes they come all bandaged up—they are national health tourists—but otherwise they come in and make life hell for any long-term residents living in the block. It is important that we restore powers that were taken away from the London local authorities. We should go back to that system and encourage local authorities to be more involved. Although the statement is made regularly that they have all the powers they need, if you ask them, they will say that they do not have the powers. I think Newham is the only London borough that has continuing powers.
Mention was made of mould in buildings. When I was on the Greater London Council, I was responsible for one-eighth of London’s housing. We introduced systems building, which was a marvellous concrete thing that was meant to be great. As chairman, I went out to visit the properties because people were very unhappy with them. Someone’s lovely wedding dress, laid out on their bed for use, had been damaged and virtually destroyed by green mould. It turned out that the whole problem was a lack of ventilation; these places were heated in the morning and then people went out to work and closed the door behind them, and the lack of ventilation meant that the mould had its perfect growing conditions. Once that was discovered, they were able to deal with the problem and put in small permanent ventilation, and the mould vanished. The problem is that, for every improvement you believe you have made in housing, there is some downside. You have to be aware of that and check that things are going well.
Many speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Carlile, mentioned legal aid. Legal aid is not that easy to come by. It is a more serious issue to have to spend the time taking a matter to court than the previous system of someone looking into things. Indeed, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Best, himself has some sort of ombudsman qualification that he deals with. It is unfortunate that powers have been taken away from local boroughs and I would like to see them reinstated.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. This has been a helpful debate. I noted very carefully the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and no doubt the Minister will respond to them. The problem is that the English Housing Survey, which was two years ago, found that one-fifth of the homes in this country fail to meet the decent homes standard, which I regard as very serious. As we know, category 1 hazards are growing and enforcement activities by local authorities are falling.
There is a very serious problem here, and I am delighted that the Bill has cross-party support and, crucially, very strong support from the Government. We have heard the list of all the organisations that support it externally, and it is a tribute to the mover of the Bill in the House of Commons, Karen Buck MP, and to the noble Lord, Lord Best, in this House that it has attracted such a degree of unanimity. That is a rare event in Parliament and a clear demonstration that this is a problem that needs a solution. We on these Benches, as noble Lords have heard, commend the Bill.
A few years ago I had the privilege of leading Newcastle City Council and one of my aims was to ensure that the decent homes standard was reached in the 30,000 or so homes for which the council had responsibility. It was vital that we achieved that and we did. However, I also recall at the time not understanding why a tenant in the private rented sector could ask the council to take enforcement action against their landlord but a tenant of the council had no right to seek enforcement by one department of the council against another. Crucially, this Bill puts that omission right.
My noble friend Lord Tope reminded us about electrical safety issues, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the specific points that he raised. I will just add that we should always remember that the Grenfell fire began through an electrical fault, so the questions asked by my noble friend Lady Grender about the problems raised by Grenfell residents and the points raised by my noble friend Lord Tope about the need for better electrical safety checks are very pertinent. To be specific, can the Minister tell us, first, whether the social rented sector will have the same statutory application that is planned for the private rented sector and, secondly, when the parliamentary time is likely to be secured to pass the legislation that the Government have promised? In particular, I would like to know whether the Government will prevent a landlord renting a property where there is no record of an electrical safety check. This matters greatly.
I do not seek to repeat all that has been said in this debate, which has been compelling, but I want to raise two or three other issues that have not been covered so far. One relates to how tenants can represent themselves in court. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has said that guidance will be produced on how tenants can represent themselves in court—but, given the cuts in legal aid, a great deal of thought needs to be given to how this will work.
Reference has been made to legal aid. It would help enormously if it could be restored for cases involving the disrepair and unfitness of properties, but I also wonder whether the Government might look carefully at expanding systems of advocacy. The councils for voluntary service, certainly in my area, support advocacy systems, and I would like to think that systems might be made available to simplify the process for tenants. They need to be briefed properly on their rights as tenants but they also need to have the confidence to take forward any problems they have. Therefore, the way in which tenants represent themselves will become an increasingly important issue.
There seems to be a problem with security of tenure in that, if a tenant makes a complaint, action must have been required by the local authority. It must have inspected the premises and served a notice on the landlord to protect the tenant’s security of tenure. I hope that the Government will look very carefully at how they can ensure that, if the local authority is not involved in the process, a tenant is protected.
In conclusion, let us re-emphasise that we are dealing with a small minority of landlords. As the Minister in the other place, Heather Wheeler, said, with this Bill the Government plan to disrupt their business model. The Bill provides a critical opportunity to achieve better enforcement and higher standards. It enables tenants to be empowered to take action directly, bypassing the local authority if they wish to, and leaving local authorities better able to concentrate on the worst cases. It is extraordinary that tenants today do not have an automatic right to live in a home fit for human habitation. With this Bill, they will have that right.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have done, I refer the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I am very much in support of the Bill and congratulate my honourable friend in the other place the Member for Westminster North, Karen Buck MP, on bringing the Bill forward and on securing government support for it, which is quite an achievement. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Best, is taking this Bill through your Lordships’ House, and I join him and other noble Lords in the fulsome tributes paid to my honourable friend. The noble Lord, Lord, Best, also listed some of the examples that Karen Buck made reference to in the other place, which were truly dreadful. We should not forget that she represents one of the richest parts of our country and our capital. Those were examples of the dreadful conditions some people have to live in today.
I am pleased that the Government have decided to support the legislation; it is very welcome, and I was very much encouraged by reading the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth.
The Bill, as we have heard in this debate, will improve standards in the private rented sector by giving tenants the ability to take legal action where the landlord fails to keep the property in a state that is fit for human habitation, and where they fail to ensure that the property is maintained in that state as the law requires them to do so. Presently, the only way a tenant can seek to rectify matters is where an environmental health officer, using powers contained in the Housing Act 2004, takes action against the landlord, as they are prevented taking direct legal action themselves to put the issues right.
So we have the situation where a landlord could rent out a property that is not fit for human habitation but only the local authority can take action against them. In many cases, the local authority will take action, but as we have debated many times in this House, local authorities are under severe financial pressure on a range of matters. According to estimated figures from the Local Government Association, the funding gap next year will be £3.2 billion. Having said that, I agree with the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that, unfortunately, some local authorities themselves have been proved to be guilty of providing properties that are unfit for human habitation. Unfortunately, that is a matter of fact.
Generally, this is a very welcome move, but that leads me on to the issue of legal aid, which many other noble Lords have referred to, to enable lower-income households to exercise their rights and have access to justice. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 cut legal aid for early advice on housing cases and restricted it to only the most serious disrepair cases, which is a matter of much regret. Even with this welcome Bill becoming law, if individuals do not have the means to seek redress in the courts, that is a barrier to improving housing standards for some of the most vulnerable people who need this protection. I am aware that the Government are conducting a review of the LASPO reforms, and I very much support the calls for legal aid to be restored for matters of disrepair and unfitness, including damage-only claims.
There is also the question of security of tenure and the protection from retaliatory eviction where tenants seek to enforce their new rights. I am aware of the protections that are currently in place—the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made reference to those—but my point is that they require the local authority to protect tenants from eviction, and this situation risks undermining the new powers won for tenants if they have to rely on hard-pressed, cash-strapped councils for that protection.
I was pleased to receive the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, which I made reference to earlier. It expresses the Government’s support for the Bill, which is great. However, one of the most interesting sections of the letter was at the second bullet point on the second page, where it says that the remedies available to the tenant will include an order of the court requiring the landlord to take action to reduce or remove the hazard, and damages to compensate them for having to live in a property which was not fit for human habitation. I fully support and welcome that—it is wonderful.
However, that made me wonder why the Government are resisting compensation payments for tenants who have been ripped off and charged prohibited payments. We can see that in the Tenant Fees Bill. The line we get from the Government is that we can have compensation and fines, but it would be unfair on the rogue landlord to have both. I do not agree with that. I will come back to that bizarre position when we consider the Bill on Report; I am sure that we will come back to this issue then. It owes more to the funding regime envisaged by the Government for that legislation than any other consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to electrical safety checks, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. That leads me to ask, as a number of noble Lords have done, about the Government’s stated intention to bring forward mandatory electrical safety checks in the private rented sector. We heard the Government’s announcement on that in July, but they have been fairly quiet since then. Perhaps the Minister can use today as an opportunity to update the House on the action that the Government intend to take. We need progress on this matter. We are now in November; change has been a long time coming and it still has not got here yet. I hope that the Minister has some good news for us today; if not, I hope that he will write to Members of the House on these matters.
I want to add to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about whether landlords will be prevented from renting out a property where they do not have any evidence that a mandatory electrical safety check has been carried out. We heard that this is the case in Wales. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester was right to illustrate that most landlords provide a good product. We should be clear about that. Good landlords are providing a good product to people and meeting their legal obligations—we should not forget that—but here, we are talking about rogues and criminals who flout the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, also referred to licensing schemes. I am very much in favour of local licensing schemes; they are positive and improve local housing situations. I have mentioned the Newham scheme many times before. Recently, I went to Newham with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who was suitably impressed by the work undertaken by the council and the mayor there. I am sure that he has mentioned that to his government colleagues.
I will bring my remarks to a close. I support the Bill and thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing it forward. I want to make it clear that I have no intention of tabling any amendments to it whatsoever, which I know may surprise noble Lords. It is important that we do not do that. The Bill is very good and needs our support. I urge noble Lords to do the same as me, no matter how tempting their well-intentioned or well-meaning amendments may be. They would do great harm. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord opposite will not table any amendments because I know how responsible he is. I am grateful to him, as I am sure other noble Lords are. This Second Reading has been a debate of great content. Some very interesting and important points have been made, to which I will do my best to respond. In so far as I cannot do so from the Dispatch Box, I undertake to write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library.
In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best. I agree very much with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the quality of the sponsorship of the Bills we have seen in the House today. We could not have a better pilot than the noble Lord, Lord Best; I thank him for his hard work on such a great cause. As other noble Lords have done, I also thank the honourable Member for Westminster North for introducing her Bill. I acknowledge her hard work in the other place; she has shown considerable determination in taking it through successfully. I am delighted that the Bill has received such widespread support across this House and in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, has given us an effective overview of the Bill and why it is needed, and I echo that. It is an important Bill and we heard from many noble Lords in this debate about the fact that 20% of the housing in this country is in need of urgent attention. That underlines the importance of having this Bill. We heard that from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lord Horam. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also echoed that point.
This fairly short Bill builds on work we have been doing to improve housing conditions and tackle rogue landlords. I must say that, although I am as guilty of using it as anyone else, I wish we could get away from the phrase “rogue landlords” because it tends to make them sound a little too cuddly for my liking. “Bastard landlords” or something stronger would probably be more appropriate because they are far from being cuddly. I shall try to deal with the situations raised by noble Lords, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Shipley. All three asked about electrical checks, as did the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.
Since 2015, we have moved on the requirement to install a smoke detector on every floor in properties and carbon monoxide detectors where the heating system uses solid fuels. We have taken tough action in the private rented sector on civil penalties for recalcitrant landlords who need action to be taken against them, which can go up to £30,000. It is worth noting that those civil penalties can be retained by local authorities, which helps them with housing enforcement. We have seen Salford City Council use those powers recently against one landlord, issuing three civil penalties for the flouting of three separate legal responsibilities and fines coming up to £55,000. As I say, local authorities keep the proceeds of those civil penalties.
Local authorities have the power to issue banning orders for landlords and add to them to the database. As noble Lords will know, we propose that the database should now become public, but I am afraid to say that that will happen when parliamentary time allows. I know that is a standard phrase which is trotted out. This issue does need legislative action, but we are dependent on the business managers finding time for that. As far as the department is concerned, this is certainly a high priority.
Private tenants can now apply to get up to 12 months’ rent back if the landlord has not dealt with health and safety hazards and the local authority has taken enforcement action through rent repayment orders under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. We have extended property licensing so that more homes in multiple occupation now need a licence and we are going out to consultation, or perhaps review, on the issue of selective licensing. We will report on that in the spring. We have also announced that we will carry out a comprehensive review of the housing health and safety rating system. The noble Lord, Lord Best, rightly stated that if that is extended, it will automatically come within the compass of this legislation. We also plan to require all landlords to belong to a mandatory redress scheme, which I think is known and understood, and we are proceeding, as noble Lords have made clear, with the Tenant Fees Bill, which will reach its Report stage in your Lordships’ House the week after next. Subject to this Bill receiving Royal Assent, we will produce guidance for tenants, as has been suggested. I have covered that in a letter which has been sent round. In response to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I intend that to include points on electrical safety. That was a point well made.
I will try to pick up the points made during the course of the debate, but if I do not address them all I will seek to cover them in a letter to noble Lords. On security of tenure, as is, I think, widely known, the department is considering the position on three-year tenancies and will respond to this issue in the new year, so an announcement will be forthcoming early in the new year on this point.
I was asked some specific questions relating to electrical safety standards. We put a question on the private and social rented sectors having the same requirements in the social housing Green Paper. I think the intention is that they should be dealt with in the same way. I cannot see any reason why they should not be. If I am wrong on that and there is a reason I will cover that in the letter, but it is not apparent to me. We will issue a letter announcing our intentions on this area before Christmas, so I hope noble Lords will bear with us on that.
I thank the right reverend Prelate for the points he made, together with perhaps an anticipatory mea culpa in case there was an issue for the Church, but I am sure it is following good practice in this area. He made a point about legal aid, as did other noble Lords. I am always grateful when noble Lords exaggerate my powers, but as I am sure can be anticipated, this is not an area where I can opine from the Dispatch Box. I will endeavour to cover the point and, as was rightly said, there is a review in this area. I hope noble Lords will understand when I say that I will cover that in the letter, but I cannot give a definitive statement of where we are on that issue.
I move on to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I agree with him on the importance of design. The design of buildings generally, not just for residences, has been a particular interest of mine. I also agree that modernist future design is important. In the National Planning Policy Framework we have, I think for the first time, a requirement to consider good design. It does not specifically mention modern design, but it certainly does not exclude it. Modern methods of construction and self-build will lend themselves particularly to more modern design. I know that the Secretary of State is committed to good design, but that does not exclude modern design. I will make sure that the points made in the debate are brought forward to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I agree with the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Tope, that sometimes in an area where you might expect good housing—university towns would certainly be part of that—something that looks like good housing from the outside looks very different once behind the door. That is something we need to bear in mind.
We talked generally and correctly about the impact that poor quality and non-decent housing has on individuals but, as was said in the debate, it also has economic effects in terms of pressures on the health service, and I am sure it has an effect on kids’ education if they are off school and so on. It certainly has dreadful social effects as well. The points are well made, hence the importance of doing what we are doing.
I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for bringing forward points about the ombudsman and a housing court, which she touched on, which are still very much on the agenda. As my noble friend mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Best, is central to the issue of the ombudsman. We are looking at that ombudsman service and the housing court issue and will be responding on that, I think, in the new year as well. I will cover that in the letter.
On holiday lets, which my noble friend mentioned, there is a special power for London in that there is a restriction of 90 days for the Airbnb-type let in London, as in other capital cities and tourist destinations around the world, such as Venice. There is a 90 days’ accommodation limit. My noble friend will know that the UK Short Term Accommodation Association is doing effective work to try to make sure that that is enforced in London. There is a separate issue with landlords enforcing the provision in their leases. I know from speaking with my noble friend yesterday that that can be a particular problem and is a particular problem for her. I have great sympathy with that issue. I will write to her on that point to see if there is anything specific we can do, but I thank her for bringing those points up.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his contribution and support. He mentioned again the electrical issues and their importance in the context of Grenfell. We do not know with certainty about the cause of the fire—at least in a legal sense—because we have not had the criminal proceedings or the result of the inquiry, but he is right about the importance of this in general terms, so I appreciate the points he is making.
I will write on the retaliatory eviction point. Certainly, there is protection where there has been an inspection of the premises by the local authority and it has confirmed that there is a legitimate complaint on the part of the tenant, but I will write more widely to cover how that is dealt with elsewhere.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, once again for his support. I am very happy to discuss with him the point on compensation for loss. I can see why he thinks that is inconsistent, but I do not think it is. Our point here on compensation in relation to tenant fees is that it is legitimate for there to be a fine, where appropriate, of the landlord and for a return of the money, and compensation if there has been a loss, for example, if somebody has suffered illness and they can demonstrate that, which is what we are talking about here. Compensation for a loss is a bit different—I think the noble Lord is talking about exemplary damages. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, will know the precise legal word.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
We will come back to this on the Tenant Fees Bill. I thought compensation was for when you suffer some loss or injury and if you had money taken off you inappropriately for a prohibited payment. Why cannot there be compensation for that? We will come back to this on the Tenant Fees Bill, but I think it is for any sort of loss, potentially. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, may want to intervene.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
If it helps the Minister, I did not immediately realise he was talking about exemplary damages because they are given in very restricted circumstances. It is pretty unlikely that they ever will be given in an ordinary landlord and tenant case.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I totally agree. We will perhaps come back to this but we are not debating it in this Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am certainly not talking about exemplary damages, but what if a landlord has been prosecuted and has to pay some compensation? Those are not exemplary damages.
Baroness Grender
What we were looking at when I tabled the amendment in Committee was compensation for expenses but, in addition, some kind of incentive, especially for people who are not on high incomes, to take the case forward. However, I am sure we will explore this further.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Without conflating the two, it begins to sound like exemplary damages to me, but we will come back to that.
I am very grateful for the support this Bill has received and the Government are very strongly in support. I thank noble Lords who participated in the debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Best, for all the work he has done and no doubt will continue to do in piloting this Bill forward.
Lord Best
My Lords, I give deep thanks to everyone who has participated. Every Member of this House who spoke welcomed this Bill and paid tribute to its author, Karen Buck. I thank noble Lords for both things. I will make myself popular by not referring to all noble Lords and their excellent contributions this afternoon.
It is quite encouraging how many of the issues we have all expressed concern about over quite a period are coalescing. The buses are all coming down the road, with quite a few backing up to join in the queue. I had not realised that there was a selective licensing review—among the several reviews going on at the moment—looking at the things that may be improved for the future. There is an awful lot of good stuff coming down the line: security of tenure, the housing courts, electrical safety and the Housing Ombudsman.
I thank the Minister very much for that. I have been in the House some years and I think he is the most diligent Minister in writing to all of us about issues of concern and keeping us abreast of things. I much appreciate noble Lords drawing attention to the fact that amendments to this Bill will not be welcome. We need to press forward and get it done. We are under pressure of time and a swift passage is what it is all about. Nobody thinks that this Bill solves all the problems of the private rented sector, but this is a really central piece of that big jigsaw. This is about the condition of the home in which people are going to live. It is perhaps the most fundamental of all the reforms that are going on now, welcome as all of them are. For that, I pay very special tribute to Karen Buck and those who have advised her. Karen Buck was twice described this afternoon as indefatigable and I have described her and do again as a heroine in these issues.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.