House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Community pharmacies play a vital role in our health service, but we know they can do more, and we are determined to see them do more, to keep people healthy.
Michael Tomlinson
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, because he is absolutely right in what he says. The Dorset Local Pharmaceutical Committee is very active and is promoting the policy of Pharmacy First, which should help to relieve pressure on our general practitioners, and even on our accident and emergency facilities. What is he doing to support that policy?
Matt Hancock
I agree very much with my hon. Friend that pharmacies can play an increasing role in helping to make sure that people get their healthcare where they need it, and in keeping the pressure off GPs and off secondary care by making sure that people can help themselves to stay healthy. We are piloting 111 directing people to pharmacies as well as to GPs and, where appropriate, to secondary care, and encouraging people to use pharmacies for minor ailments, but there is much more we can do together on this.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
The NHS Confederation has warned that, following Brexit, the supply of some medicines and medical technologies may be delayed in reaching patients, and some may not be available at all. The chief executive officer of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has been clear that we cannot stockpile the amounts we are going to need, because we do not have sufficient cold warehouse storage. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is worried therefore that diabetics will not be able to access insulin. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that community pharmacies are able to supply vital medical supplies post Brexit, particularly in the event of no deal?
Matt Hancock
Community pharmacies, like everybody else, should support the Prime Minister’s deal, which will make sure that that eventuality does not occur.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
In the year to June 2017, the NHS spent approximately £569 million on prescriptions for medicines that could be bought over the counter from a pharmacy or supermarket. That is why, following public consultation earlier this year, NHS England issued guidance to reduce the routine prescribing of some medicines for minor, short-term ailments, including head lice treatment.
Emma Hardy
Yesterday, I met people from the charity Community Hygiene Concern, which provides cheap, reusable and effective bug-busting kits for less than £5. However, because of these NHS prescription guidance changes, these kits are no longer available, which threatens an epidemic of head lice in our schools. Surely head lice should not be considered a minor ailment. Will the Minister please write to Simon Stevens to encourage him to meet me and Community Hygiene Concern to look at this issue again?
Steve Brine
I have been itching all morning while thinking about this answer. I do not believe there is an epidemic because of NHS England’s actions. Clinical experts in the NHS advise that head lice can be safely and effectively treated by wet combing; I have very recent personal experience of doing this, as I am sure do many parents in this House. Chemical treatment is recommended only in exceptional circumstances. I had not heard of the charity the hon. Lady mentions, but as we discussed before questions, I am happy to facilitate that interaction.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
In France, where head lice are more common per capita than in the UK, people make good use of pharmacies, because it costs money to visit a general practitioner and because the state promotes the role of pharmacies. May I therefore ask the Minister why do we not advertise that we should be using pharmacies more often than not, instead of going to a GP?
Mr Speaker
Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the matter of head lice. [Interruption.] It seemed to be slightly tangential, but never mind. The hon. Gentleman was at least attempting to shoehorn his preoccupation into the question, but I will err on the side of generosity. I know that he knows all about heads and all about hair—
Steve Brine
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is familiar with wet combing his hair.
Steve Brine
Only with his gel. He is absolutely right that, as the Secretary of State just said, community pharmacies are experts in so many minor health matters, and Pharmacy First can absolutely be used when it comes to head lice as well.
Mr Speaker
Is the hon. Gentleman feeling jumpy or does he wish to contribute?
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
We have had lots; it is just that none come with any idea of how that might be paid for. The Government have a strong track record on public health. Local authorities in England have received more than £16 billion in ring-fenced public health grants over the current spending period. Decisions on future funding for that area of spending are of course for the next spending review.
Mike Amesbury
On current projections, over £800 million will have been cut from public health budgets by 2021, £2 million of which has been cut from vital services in my constituency relating to sexual health, and to tackle obesity and smoking. Will the Minister guarantee that the new NHS long-term plan will reverse the cuts to public health budgets?
Steve Brine
I know that Opposition Members like to pretend that the past eight and a half years did not have to happen, but there is a reason why they had to happen—the economy was crashed—and eight and a half years is not a long time to clear up the mess of the last Government. But we are very clear, as the hon. Gentleman should know, that a focus on prevention will be central to the long-term plan. He mentions child obesity—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may wish to listen. The public health grant remains ring-fenced and protected for use exclusively on improving health, but local government spending on health is not just about the public health grant. The Government spend money on many other things, including around the child obesity plan and vaccinations, and that is all around prevention and public health.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
As local government is reorganised in Northamptonshire ahead of May 2020, will the Minister consider whether it may not be appropriate in all cases for local councils to manage public health budgets, and whether in some cases it might make sense for the NHS to regain control?
Steve Brine
There are active discussions going on between my right hon. Friends the Health Secretary and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about this, but the bottom line is that Parliament legislated through the Health and Social Care Act 2012 for local authorities up and down the country in England to be public health authorities. We believe that they are well placed to make these spending decisions with the ring-fenced grant—£16 billion —that we have given them.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The underfunding of public health in Cumbria means that the NHS spends only 75p per child per year on preventive mental health care. Added to that, over three quarters of young people with eating disorders are not seen within the target time of a month, and in the event that they are seen, there is no specialist one-to-one eating disorder service to see them, despite the Government promising three years ago that there would be. Will the Minister meet me and our local NHS so that we can get a better deal for our young people on all three of these points?
Steve Brine
The hon. Gentleman will remember, of course, that £1 billion extra was put into mental health in the Budget last month, but I would absolutely be interested to hear from him. There are very good things going on up and down the country in local authorities with the ring-fenced £16 billion that we have given them. We are very interested to hear about where there are good examples of things going on, and the long-term future discussions around them will take in the spending review, as I have said.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State claims that prevention is one of his top three priorities, yet this year alone the Government have slashed public health budgets by £96 million. That includes cuts to smoking cessation services, sexual health services, obesity and addiction services and many more. This affects the most vulnerable in our society, so will the Minister do the right thing today and cut the rhetoric, commit to reversing these damaging cuts to public health, and put funding in the long-term plan?
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady—my shadow Minister—knows that I have a great deal of respect for her. She mentioned smoking; smoking rates in England are at their lowest ever levels. We hear spending commitment after spending commitment from the Labour Government; it is like the arsonist turning up at the scene of a fire. I will take very seriously, as I am sure will the Treasury, her bid towards the spending review discussions, but yes, prevention is better than cure and it will be at the heart of the long-term plan.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Prevention is indeed better than cure. As well as having a right to expect NHS services to be free at the point of use, we all have responsibility for our own health, and to use the NHS responsibly.
Jim Shannon
I recently met Breast Cancer Now—the Secretary of State will be aware of it. It has 10 priorities for the NHS long-term plan. Has he made an assessment of the impact of the real-terms 5% cut in public health budgets on reducing the incidence of cancer?
Matt Hancock
There are many things we need to do to diagnose cancer early, and of course public health is part of that, but there is a much bigger agenda, and that includes more screening. We have seen an increase in the number of people invited to screening, but we need to get the screening right, so I have instituted a review of all our screening processes for cancer and other diseases.
Robert Neill
Will my right hon. Friend look at the work done by Connect Well Bromley, a partnership funded by the local clinical commissioning group but delivered by Bromley Third Sector Enterprise and Community Links Bromley? That partnership sets out what is in effect a social prescribing programme of activities and services to deal with wellbeing issues at an early stage. Is that a model for elsewhere in the country?
Matt Hancock
Yes, it is. I have been briefed on the example that Bromley is setting, which has been brought to my attention by its brilliant local representative, my hon. Friend. Social prescribing systems such as this one are on the rise, because the evidence shows that social prescribing helps to keep people healthy and out of hospital.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
A fortnight ago, during his statement to the House on prevention and how the Government intend to keep our nation well, the Secretary of State told me that he would look at my Health Impacts (Public Sector Duty) Bill, which had its Second Reading on Friday. Unfortunately, on Friday, the Government objected to my Bill. Which elements of the Bill did the Secretary of State object to?
Matt Hancock
I know the hon. Lady has done an awful lot of work on this, and I respect that work. We did look at the Bill, but we thought it was, unfortunately, technically deficient. I know she cares a lot about this, however, as do I, and I want to work with her to see what we can do.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
According to Office for National Statistics figures, over the past five years, there have been 150,000 excess winter deaths—a mortality rate twice that in Germany and Norway. What specific work is the Secretary of State doing to reduce the number of deaths this coming winter?
Matt Hancock
This year, since I became Secretary of State, we have put an extra £420 million in to make sure we are as well prepared as possible. The NHS is of course under pressure, although it is performing exceptionally well, in terms of how much it does for the money going in, and from next year, we will put in the extra £20 billion. I want part of the long-term plan to be about how we can plan for the long term, instead of having this annual cycle of winter pressures.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of joining volunteer leader John Goodwin and others on a health walk around Capstone park in my constituency—one of a number of health walks supported by Medway Council. Will the Secretary of State join me in encouraging more GPs to prescribe walking as a gentle, low-impact form of exercise that is suitable for all ages and abilities?
Matt Hancock
With enthusiasm, I endorse the call from my hon. Friend, who did so much work on this at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, both before I was in that Department and when I was Secretary of State there. She made the case brilliantly, and she continues to do so. She is absolutely right.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Matt Hancock
Every EU worker across our health and social care system—whether in the NHS, or working in public health, in local authorities or in social care—is welcome here, and is supported to be welcome here, and we look forward to the settled status scheme rolling out. We are grateful for their service.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
GP appointments are vital for many to lead healthy lives, so will the Secretary of State give his strong personal support to the work of our fantastic GPs, and encourage the NHS to put general practice at the heart of the £20 billion future plan?
Matt Hancock
Yes. General practice will be at the heart of the long-term plan. GPs are the bedrock of the NHS. We will put an extra £3.5 billion, at least, into primary and community services to help keep people healthy and prevent them from going to hospital.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State got into a muddle last week with his GP figures, so may I suggest that he download an exciting new app to his phone? It is called a calculator. He has said that there will be more for community and primary care by 2024. Can he guarantee that there will be the extra GPs and district nurses to provide the services that he is promising?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I can; given that we have the money coming into the NHS, we are doing everything possible to ensure that we have the people to do the work. I am delighted to say that we have a record number of GPs in training right now.
Jonathan Ashworth
But GP numbers have gone down by 700 in the last year, have they not? There are 107,000 vacancies across the NHS, acute trusts are closing accident and emergency departments overnight, the closure of chemotherapy departments is being considered, and Health Education England’s training budget is the lowest that it has been for five years, with more cuts to come next year. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the long-term plan that he will publish next week is to be credible, he must reverse those training cuts and deliver the staff that our NHS needs?
Matt Hancock
That was a bit of a surprise, because the hon. Gentleman is normally such a reasonable fellow. I thought that he would welcome the record number of GPs in training, and the record number of nurses in the NHS. Because we love the NHS, of course we want to do more, and we will.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
People with learning disabilities still face significant health inequalities. Data from 2017 shows that about half of patients with a learning disability received an annual GP health check, and our target is 75% by 2020. We will shortly consult on plans to introduce mandatory learning disability and autism training for all health and care staff.
Marsha De Cordova
There are shocking health inequalities between people with learning disabilities and the general population, and that is recognised by GPs: 60% say that they have received less than a day’s training in how to meet the needs of patients with learning disabilities and autism, while 98% say that they would appreciate more training. The Government are clearly failing people with learning disabilities. Will they commit themselves to ensuring that every new GP who is trained in England is also given training in how to meet the needs of people with learning disabilities and autism?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes. That is already part of the training framework. As I have said, however, we are consulting from early next year on plans to make training on learning disabilities and autism mandatory for all health and care staff, not just medical professionals.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Let me start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his support last Thursday on 22q Awareness Day; 22q11 deletion syndrome is second only to Down’s syndrome in its prevalence as a genetic condition, but perhaps surprisingly, there is a remarkably low level of awareness among GPs of this condition, which can lead to avoidable mental health issues in children. Will the Minister meet me to discuss options to increase awareness in the first instance, but also to improve early diagnosis and treatment?
Caroline Dinenage
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the excellent work that he is doing to draw attention to this condition, and I should be happy to meet him.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
We know from recent trends reported to the public health outcomes framework that health inequalities persist in this country. We already have world-leading programmes to address the root causes of poor health, including programmes to deal with childhood obesity, control tobacco and prevent diabetes and heart disease. The Prime Minister has set an ambition to ensure that people can enjoy at least five extra healthy independent years of life by 2035, while narrowing the gap between the experiences of the richest and the poorest, and next year the Secretary of State will set out further plans to achieve that in his prevention Green Paper.
Debbie Abrahams
We have known for decades that poverty and economic inequality drive health inequalities. The richer people are, the longer they live, and the longer they live in good health. In addition to the economic analyses of the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, what assessment has the Minister made of the deal’s impacts on health inequalities, and on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, which we know are already falling in some parts of the country, and among some groups of people?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The reasons for health inequalities are complex, but obviously we encourage people to make the lifestyle changes that enable everyone to live longer. I simply do not accept that the direct causality that the hon. Lady has outlined is as clear as that. We will focus on programmes that help people to lead healthier lives with better diets; that tackle tobacco control; and that prevent diabetes.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
As it is the most deprived children who are most overweight, will the Minister call on Kellogg’s to follow the example of Nestlé and put traffic light colours on all its products so that people can make healthier choices?
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Clearly the more we can do to educate people to make informed choices to improve their diet, the better. He is absolutely right: poor health among children used to be indicated by being underweight, but now being overweight is very much an indicator. I congratulate any food manufacturer that is taking action to address the problem.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister and the ministerial team know that many working class people do not have good access to GPs, and that GPs treat them differently from more middle class people, as demonstrated by the number of people from poorer backgrounds with atrial fibrillation who are wrongly diagnosed. If they are diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat or pulse, they are given the wrong drugs. That happens to many ordinary people in this country: there are still all these wonderful GPs prescribing aspirin that will do no good at all. What is going on with GPs and poorer people?
Jackie Doyle-Price
Our NHS is full of people who are doing their best to deliver the best possible care for all their patients. It is important that GPs and any health practitioners consider the holistic needs of all their patients—
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Gentleman says they are killing people; that is not the debate I want on the NHS.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Scotland has the lowest life expectancies of all parts of the United Kingdom, with the figures falling for the first time in 35 years. The average life expectancy in 2017 was 77 years for men and 81.1 for women, compared with 79.2 for men and 82.9 for women in the rest of the UK. What can my hon. Friend do to support the devolved Administration to ensure that Scotland is not left behind the rest of the United Kingdom?
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. I am always very keen to work with the devolved nations to both learn from what they do well and to share our expertise and experience where we are doing better, and I hope we will all co-operate to do exactly that.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Initiating breastfeeding at birth can help reduce to health inequalities. Due to the actions of the Scottish Government, breastfeeding rates in Scotland are at a record high, whereas in England they are falling back dramatically because of local cuts. What will the Minister do to increase breastfeeding rates in England?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I commend the hon. Lady for her leadership on the issue, and she is right that this is one of the most significant public health interventions we can make at the earliest point in life. I will happily line up with her to do more to champion breastfeeding, and there is certainly a lot further to go, not least in ensuring that society is more tolerant of the practice and that women really do enjoy their right to breastfeed.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
In June we published chapter 2 of our child obesity plan, which built on the world-leading measures we introduced in 2016, including bold new measures to halve child obesity by 2030.
Luke Hall
Will the Minister join me in welcoming the launch this week of South Gloucestershire Council’s Reach programme? It is an evidence-based service for obese and overweight children aged between four and 16 in South Gloucestershire and their families, aimed at improving the wellbeing of young people and building their esteem, and raising issues of weight gain between and among families.
Steve Brine
I certainly will; we need a collective effort to achieve the national ambition of halving child obesity by 2030, and that means we need local initiatives such as the Reach programme to support families and help them make positive lifestyle choices. I pass on my congratulations to South Gloucestershire Council on its programme.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Steve Brine
Through our work on parity of esteem for physical and mental health, we take eating disorders very seriously. That is not directly related to the child obesity plan, but we are absolutely determined to tackle weight challenges at either end of the scale, because I know that they affect a lot of people.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Obesity is now one of the biggest risks to health and a significant cause of cancer and other conditions. Is it not time to look at restricting the advertising of junk food up to 9 o’clock?
Steve Brine
I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman and do a lot of work with him. He knows that we published proposals in the child obesity plan to launch a consultation on a pre-9 pm watershed ban, and we will be bringing that forward before the end of the year as promised.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
No child or young person with cancer should be unable to access the treatment they need because of the cost of travelling to hospital. Through the healthcare travel costs scheme, which is part of the NHS low income scheme, parents in receipt of a qualifying benefit or on a low income can claim for the reimbursement of travel costs for their children’s treatment. To date, the scheme has helped some 337,000 people.
Robert Halfon
CLIC Sargent, the charity for children with cancer, has shown that families in my constituency with children with cancer can face a 54-mile round trip to get to their nearest treatment location, which can cost them up to £161.58 a month. Families are incurring thousands of pounds of debt paying for parking and driving their children to their cancer treatment. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that only 6% of parents of children with cancer are reported as having received financial help from the NHS healthcare travel costs assistance scheme? Does he recognise that the scheme is not designed to meet the needs of children and young people who need highly specialised treatment—
Steve Brine
Yes, we do recognise that there is a challenge there. I gave evidence to the all-party parliamentary group on children, teenagers and young adults with cancer, and I have a copy of the “Listen Up” report here. CLIC Sargent is part of the secretariat for that group. We are looking at this issue through the long-term plan, and I look forward to meeting my right hon. Friend along with CLIC Sargent in the next few weeks as planned.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Access to services is very important for those in the poorest areas of my constituency. Warrington Hospital has been losing services over time, but it has now sought to become a cancer hub for north Cheshire. Will the Minister ensure that, in the case of such applications, access to services for the poorest people is considered along with other factors?
Steve Brine
Yes, we are interested in access to services for all people, wherever they are on the income scheme. The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. We need to do better on cancer diagnosis, so I would be interested to hear more about the cancer hub that she mentions.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
Since 2013, when local authorities took on responsibility for these services, attendance has increased from 2.9 million to 3.3 million. Tests for sexually transmitted infections and access to long-acting contraception have also increased, which shows that people are taking their sexual health seriously and that services are responding.
Nick Smith
Unfortunately, syphilis and gonorrhoea diagnoses are up 20% since 2016. What are the Government going to do to address this growing trend, given that sexual health services are at their limit?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The evidence I have is that sexually transmitted infection rates are stable, that rates of teen pregnancy are falling, that rates of abortion are stable and that rates of HIV testing are increasing. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I will look into it. The most important thing is not necessarily where or how people access their services, because we want to make tests and long-term contraception available online too. We will keep the issue under review.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with the chief medical officer, who said in her evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee that she thought the cuts to sexual health services had gone too far?
Jackie Doyle-Price
As I said in my previous answer, the important thing is to look at outcomes. We can see that levels of teen pregnancy and sexual infection are stable and that more people are accessing contraception. We need to ensure that people can access contraception in the most convenient way for them, and we can see that rates of access are on the increase.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
Community healthcare plays a vital role in helping people stay independent and healthy. Last week, the Prime Minister set out a major new investment in primary and community healthcare worth £3.5 billion a year by 2023-24.
Sir Hugo Swire
I am extremely grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came down to East Devon on his first visit outside London. He was able to visit the health and wellbeing hub that we have created in Budleigh Salterton, learn about the beds that we have kept in Sidmouth and Exmouth, and see Ottery St Mary Hospital. Will the Minister instruct all her officials to work collectively with us and the local community in Ottery St Mary to ensure that the hospital has a great future and fits in with the rest of local healthcare provision?
Caroline Dinenage
First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his elegant Movember facial decoration. I very much recommend that he keeps it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was delighted to visit the East Devon constituency recently, where he was impressed by the work at some of the existing community hospitals and care hubs and discussed with Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust how it will work on a sustainable future for the constituency’s community hospital in Ottery St Mary.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Since the Department says that it likes community hospitals, why are services and wards closing at the Richardson in Barnard Castle?
Caroline Dinenage
We know that patients prefer to be treated in their local area, which is much better for preventing hospital admission and getting people out of hospital for longer. However, such clinical decisions must be taken at a local level in consultation with local people.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Dartmouth has lost its much-loved community hospital. Unfortunately, that loss has been compounded by the closure of River View nursing home, which had been due to house some replacement facilities. The total loss of community beds in isolated coastal communities such as Dartmouth is causing a collapse of trust in such programmes. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the situation in Dartmouth and the loss of nursing home and community beds?
Caroline Dinenage
I will of course meet my hon. Friend. She is right that we need to keep such valuable local resources right in the community, where they are most needed and where they keep people out of acute hospital services and surrounded by their friends and family.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The usage of Caithness General Hospital in Wick in my constituency is way below what it was originally designed for, causing my constituents great anxiety if they have to travel over 200 miles to Inverness and back. Mr Speaker, you will tell me that such matters are devolved, so will the Government share best practice on community hospitals with the Scottish Government and NHS Highland?
Mr Speaker
What a wily fellow to get the question in order. Well done, man.
Caroline Dinenage
I am happy to work with our colleagues in Scotland to push forward best practice in helping to support community facilities and to ensure that they are investing in facilities at the heart of people’s local areas, which is where they are needed.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
Wantage Community Hospital was built and opened by the local community in 1927, but it has been closed for two years. Moves are afoot to improve both our local health centre and health facilities in Didcot, but all that must be joined up and the community needs an answer. Will the Minister use her power to convene a meeting of local stakeholders and her officials to find a way through the maze and a future for our hospital?
Caroline Dinenage
I am always happy to speak to my right hon. Friend about such things. I understand that the intention is now to move to a more place-based approach to health and care planning in his local area, but all such changes are subject to consultation.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I will be honest, I am confused. We have heard the Minister say several times that community approaches are important, but our walk-in centre in Eastham is yet again being threatened with closure. Which is it—do this Tory Government want crowded A&Es or proper walk-in centres that will prevent people from unnecessarily ending up at A&E?
Caroline Dinenage
I do not think I can make it any clearer: this Government are committed to providing community services right where people need them, and we are putting our money where our mouth is. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a major new investment in primary and community healthcare of £3.5 billion.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Stephen Hammond
Thank you very much.
The Government’s mandate to NHS England for 2018-19 clearly sets out A&E performance, and it will see performance improve. So far this year 18 million more attendances have been seen within the standard, and the NHS is introducing more options for urgent patient care. Of course, as the hon. Lady will know, the extra £20 billion a year that is going into the health service will ensure that more patients are seen in A&E.
Gill Furniss
According to a recent poll of doctors by the Royal College of Physicians, almost six in 10 doctors report feeling very worried or worried about the ability of their hospital to deliver safe patient care over the winter period. What is the Secretary of State or the Minister doing to help our hard-working NHS staff provide the best possible care for patients?
Stephen Hammond
The NHS faces a challenging winter, but it has been planning throughout the year for this winter. It has been supported by an extra £420 million to redevelop A&Es, improve emergency care and help patients get home quicker. Those plans, more directly, include reducing the extended hospital stays we saw last year, increasing access to GP appointments and increasing the volume of cases that can be treated by emergency dentists.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Last week I visited the A&E at County Hospital, Stafford, which achieved 95.8% on the four-hour target in the week beginning 22 October and has consistently achieved over 95% for the past few months. Will the Minister come to Stafford to see what a great job it is doing, and to see how we can use County Hospital more and bring more services into it?
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend has always been an assiduous advocate for his constituents and their concerns. He is right to make that case today. He is also right that, thanks to the hard-working staff in his hospital and across the country, the four-hour target continues to be met for nearly nine out of 10 patients. I will be delighted to come to Stafford.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that what considerably exacerbates A&E waiting times at the weekend is when, on occasion, our highly valued NHS staff come under attack? We should have a zero-tolerance approach to any attacks on those highly valued members of staff.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There can be no statement other than complete condemnation of attacks. We have changed the law, and it came into force earlier this month.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place. Although he is new, he will know that the A&E waiting target is not a recent initiative. It is a key part of the NHS constitution, but it has not been met for over three years. If he cannot make a commitment today on when the target will be met, will he accept that, at least for this winter under this Government, the NHS will once again be underfunded?
Stephen Hammond
As I said in my earlier answer, we recognise that this winter will be challenging. We recognise that the A&E performance standard is not currently being met, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are investing an extra £20 billion in the NHS to ensure that the standards are met. The NHS will use that investment to treat 250,000 more patients and to improve A&E performance across the country.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
The latest UCAS data from October 2018 show that demand for nursing courses remains strong, with applications exceeding the number of places available this year. The number of acceptances to nursing and midwifery courses in 2018 is consistent with earlier years at approximately 22,000. The final data will be published in December 2018.
Mr Robertson
Does the Minister accept that student nurses face pressures from the long hours they have to study and the long hours they spend on placements, which makes it very difficult for them also to carry out paid work? Is there any more the Government can do to support student nurses financially as they go through college?
Stephen Hammond
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we recognise the vital role that nurses play, and we are determined to support them. We are determined to have more nurses in training and more nurses treating patients. At the moment, a student on the loan system typically achieves 25% more in their pocket than they would have had on the bursary, but the Government recognise that there are still pressures, which is why we have the learning support fund, the exceptional hardship fund and support for mature students.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I talk to local employers who desperately want to support nursing apprenticeships as an alternative to the higher education route, but the uptake of apprenticeships is very disappointing. The levy can be used only for training costs, and trusts have been asked to plug the shortfall in funding for wider capacity building and to cover the 20% of time for which apprentices have to go to off-the-job training. Does the Department recognise this problem? What is being done to address it?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Lady is right that the number of trusts that currently use the levy is not as high as it should be. We hope that all will do so. It continues to be a priority for us to broaden the routes into nursing. We will address in the long-term plan the specific matter about which the hon. Lady talks.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
The NHS employs more staff now than at any other time in its 70-year history. It has recruited 18,200 more doctors and 11,000 more nurses are in our wards since 2010. NHS Improvement publishes vacancy rates using provider information. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the record investment that the Government are providing will ensure that the number of vacancies reduces.
Sandy Martin
With Suffolk’s only psychiatric intensive care unit having been closed down from April to October this year because of lack of staff, and with a two-to-three-month waiting list for counselling, does the Minister not understand that his reassurances do not bear much relationship to people’s lived experience?
Stephen Hammond
I am aware that the local trust has had a number of problems and that there were a number of bed closures—both temporary and permanent —earlier this year. The trust is closely monitoring how those closures are affecting services and patients. The hon. Gentleman will know that beds are being reopened—five beds have been reopened recently—and that there is a plan to put in place the staffing so that the whole ward can reopen in the near future.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are committed to having more nurses and more staff in training, that we are putting in place extra measures to ensure that specialities are supported through that training process and that the extra £20 billion in the long-term plan will ensure that there are the staff and nurses needed to fill those vacancies.
Mr Speaker
We are running over time, so very briefly, please, Dr Philippa Whitford.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Last week, the Secretary of State claimed that the number of GPs in England had increased by more than 1,000 from June to September, when the data actually showed a drop of 10 full-time equivalent doctors. In 2015, his predecessor promised an extra 5,000 GPs by 2020, but so far there are 1,000 fewer, so how does the Secretary of State plan to meet that target in just the next year?
Stephen Hammond
As the hon. Lady knows from a previous answer, we are committed to making sure that 5,000 extra GP places are available. There are more GPs in training than before, and 52,000 nurses are now in training. We will ensure that the number of GPs in training meets the target.
Dr Whitford
I find that hard to believe when there is only a year left of the five-year promise.
Scotland has 30% more GPs per head of population, but last year we lost 14% of our EU doctors, and England lost 19%. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the hostile language of the Brexit debate is making the UK seem unwelcoming and making it harder for all four UK health services to recruit?
Stephen Hammond
There are currently more doctors from the EU treating patients in the national health service than on referendum day. We are committed to the 5,000 target.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
We are increasing the NHS budget by £20.5 billion in real terms over the next five years. It is a major investment to make sure that the NHS is there for us all.
Jack Brereton
Royal Stoke University Hospital continues to be in financial special measures, and local clinical commissioning groups are now projecting significant overspends in their budgets. How will the Secretary of State ensure that stressed health economies such as those in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire get a significant share of the additional £20.5 billion?
Matt Hancock
Clearly, part of the £20.5 billion of extra funding that taxpayers are putting into the NHS over the next five years is for ensuring that services can be put on a sustainable footing, and that includes some of the highly stressed services such as those in Stoke.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
How do the Government plan to use funds to better identify perinatal mental health problems? Half of all women with perinatal mental health problems say that the current system does not identify their need.
Matt Hancock
I very much agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We need to do much more on this subject. It is incredibly important, and there will be more to hear in the long-term plan.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The deal that the Prime Minister struck to leave the EU will ensure access to medicines and medical equipment, so it is another good reason to vote for the deal.
Matt Hancock
Well, of course, while voting for the deal is the best way to ensure the unhindered supply of medicines and medical devices, as a responsible Government we are also planning for the unlikely event of no deal, and that planning includes ensuring that we can continue to get unhindered access after the six weeks for which we are making sure that supplies are available.
Emma Reynolds
We are currently an influential member of the European Medicines Agency, which gives patients access to new medicines six months sooner than non-members. Given that the political declaration reduces us to exploring the possibility of co-operation with the EMA, will the Secretary of State admit that there are no guarantees for patients and that it is very likely that they will have to wait longer?
Matt Hancock
No, because in the event, under any circumstances, we will make sure that there are no further burdens on ensuring that medicines can get licensed here so that patients can use them, but it is another reason why the hon. Lady should vote for the deal.
Mr Speaker
I will call the right hon. Lady on the condition that she can ask her question in one relatively brief sentence. [Interruption.] No? Go on, you can do it.
Anna Soubry
Many people say that the much-heralded £20 billion extra for the NHS is some sort of Brexit dividend. In the event that our country remains in the European Union, will the Secretary of State confirm that that extra 3.4% a year will continue and that £20 billion will be made available to our NHS?
Matt Hancock
I am afraid that I will have to let my right hon. Friend know that we are leaving the European Union on 29 March.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
The NHS long-term plan, backed by the extra investment by 2023 and confirmed by the Chancellor in the Budget, will set out a sustainable vision for the NHS to make strides towards it being the safest, highest-quality healthcare system anywhere in the world, learning from everywhere and anywhere in the world over the next 10 years.
David Tredinnick
According to the flyer for the post-launch party, the integrated care systems will be considered. Will the Minister make sure that he looks at the use of homeopathy by French pharmacists, the three quarters of a million doctors using traditional healthcare in the Ayush Ministry in India and the 55,000 state hospitals using acupuncture in the People’s Republic of China?
Steve Brine
The NHS should always look to learn from the best healthcare systems and practices anywhere in the world provided they are backed by evidence.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
This month, we launched our vision for the prevention of ill health that sets out measures to help increase life expectancy by at least five years because prevention is better than cure. We need to give people responsibility for their own health, while empowering them to make the right decisions in the right way. We are also saving more than £1 billion on the NHS drugs budget and committing more than £3.5 billion to primary and community care. Next month, we will publish the long-term plan for how we spend the extra £20 billion committed to the future of the NHS.
Luke Hall
19 November marked the three-year licence of the cystic fibrosis drug, Orkambi, in the UK, which is still not available on the NHS. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether there has been any further consideration to provide interim access to this treatment for patients, such as my constituents Annabelle Brennan and Cameron Jameson, while these negotiations continue?
Matt Hancock
The NHS and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence have written to Vertex, the company involved. I am determined to see progress. We have made the largest ever proposal to Vertex, at half a billion pounds. It needs to engage with this very generous offer, which will mean that everyone wins, most of all those suffering from this awful condition. The ball is in Vertex’s court.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The learning disabilities mortality review—the LeDeR—investigated 1,000 early deaths of people with learning disabilities in hospital settings, but today major concerns have been raised by the parents of Oliver McGowan about the way in which some deaths have been investigated. The Secretary of State knows that 40 autistic people and people with learning disabilities died in assessment and treatment units, and he has called for a year-long review of the use of seclusion in ATUs. But that is not urgent action. Will he commit to stopping the use of ATUs immediately and to looking urgently at how early deaths are being investigated, particularly that of Oliver McGowan?
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
I have met Oliver McGowan’s mum, Paula, on a number of occasions, so I am more than aware of this case. I have spoken to her about the deeply distressing report she has had on Oliver’s death. The NHS is looking into this case and will continue to work with Bristol University to further develop and improve guidance and local review teams.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
Matt Hancock
I can recommend to anybody spending the night with my hon. Friend in Derriford Hospital, where we learnt a huge amount. The team there were absolutely amazing and it was a brilliant experience. I also learnt a lot about the capital bid, which I have been keeping my eye on very closely. My hon. Friend should hear shortly.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
I have a huge amount of sympathy for the hon. Lady’s point. We did act to ensure that the parties came together. The offer has been made and the response from the company has frankly not been good enough. It needs to come to the table; the ball is in its court.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
My hon. Friend is right. I welcome the trust’s recent announcement that it now has enough middle-grade doctors and nurses to keep the Prince Royal Hospital’s A&E open 24/7. It has been receiving some excellent support from NHS Improvement, and I hope that it will achieve similar success in improving the quality of care as that support continues.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. When we last discussed this matter over the Dispatch Box, I said that it was my ambition to come back to her as soon as possible, but we have to agree a cross-Government response, which is imminent. However, she is quite right; we really need to respond as soon as possible.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have brought forward proposals to have a mental health lead in all schools. We are also introducing a brand new workforce to support schools and improve mental health provision. The first wave of staff are being recruited for training now, and we have 210 applicants for the first wave of places.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
I join the right hon. Gentleman in celebrating World Aids Day and ensuring that we redouble our commitment to making sure that we do everything we can. I will certainly look into the precise commitment that he asks for to make sure not only that it is deliverable but that we work not just here but around the world to end this scourge.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Everyone in this place has lost someone close to them to the terrible and terrifying disease that is cancer. How will the NHS 10-year plan help to improve detection rates?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
The Prime Minister will set out our ambition that three quarters of all cancers will be diagnosed early, up from just half today. Our cancer survival figures are our best ever, but we do not have world-class outcomes yet, as we must and want to. That is why early diagnosis will be absolutely at the heart of the NHS long-term plan—for instance, in radically overhauling the screening programmes that the Secretary of State mentioned earlier.
Mr Speaker
I do slightly worry about the staying power of some colleagues. I will not say who, because it would be unkind, but there was a Member I was about to call who has beetled out of the Chamber. People have got to be a bit patient.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
South Tyneside District Hospital recently surpassed targets for waiting times, yet this Government’s forced cuts under the guise of sustainability and transformation plans have left my constituents fundraising to fight the downgrading of key services in court next month. Why is the Secretary of State presiding over this destruction by stealth of our high-performing hospital and the NHS?
Matt Hancock
Of course, the STP proposals have to be clinically led and consulted on and discussed with local people. It is right that the allocation of services and exactly how they are configured locally is led locally, so that we can get the best services to people in Tyneside and across the country.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
In England, over 80,000 people have a stroke each year and about 20% of them die within a year. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me, the House and my constituents in Corby and East Northamptonshire that he not only wants to drive down that figure but has a plan to do so?
Steve Brine
Yes, I can. I feel very passionately about stroke and the impact that it has on people’s lives and the health service. We are working very closely with the Stroke Association to develop the new national plan for stroke in England as part of the long-term plan. That plan will build on the success of the Department’s stroke strategy, which ended last month, and look at how we can improve stroke care across the pathway. It will also, critically, include prevention so that we can protect more people from stroke in the first place.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Despite the Government’s reassurances on the new NHS pay deal, it has left one of my constituents actually taking less money home at the end of the month and being required to pay money back. When I wrote to the Department, the Minister had the audacity to simply respond with a generic factsheet. Does he think this acceptable, and if not, will he give a meaningful reply to my constituent, who has done 30 years in the NHS?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. We value everybody who works in the NHS. I would love the hon. Lady to take up this individual case with me directly, and I am very happy to look into it.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
I have recently been contacted by a constituent who works as a paediatrician in a nearby hospital. Last Friday, tragically, a baby died in their ward. The cause of death is unknown. Owing to the lack of a coroner service at the weekend, the baby had to stay for three nights with breathing tubes fixed in. For the parents, these are the last memories of their child. What steps will the Minister be taking to guarantee that the seven days NHS requirement also applies to coroners and histopathologists?
Matt Hancock
My heart goes out to the parents of this child, my hon. Friend’s constituents, as I am sure it does from everybody in this House. Of course I will happily take up this individual case. But she raises the broader point, too. I am meeting the Justice Secretary on this topic to discuss what further we can do. It is technically a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I understand entirely why we need to work together to make progress.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
Is not the Secretary of State alarmed that fake psychiatrist Zholia Alemi was revalidated in 2013 under the supposedly strengthened revalidation process? Why did the Government not act on the findings of the Sir Keith Pearson report in January last year, which pointed out this exact weakness in the system?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman raised that matter with me last week. He knows that the Government take it very seriously and that we are asking the General Medical Council for an immediate review of that case, but I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I welcome the new early diagnosis ambition for cancer, but does the Minister agree that for the people of West Oxfordshire, this is about delivery and having the people available to implement the strategy that he has worked so hard to produce?
Steve Brine
My hon. Friend is spot on, as always. Just last week, I spent time with the heads of all 19 cancer alliances in England, which are doing so much to deliver the strategy on the ground, including his Thames Valley cancer alliance, led by Bruno Holthof of Churchill Hospital in Oxford. The alliance was clear that we need more people across the board in “team cancer”, as I call it, and that is right. We especially need more radiographers, and we are working through that with Health Education England in the beyond 2021 plan.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
Today’s report on the amount of police time spent dealing with emergency mental health cases without support from mental health professionals is echoed by police in my constituency, who say that it takes up almost 40% of their time. Will the Government recognise that this crisis should not be dealt with by police officers, far less in cells, and sort it out?
Jackie Doyle-Price
First, I pay tribute to the work that the police do in dealing with people who are in mental health crisis. They view it as part of their core work, but clearly they should not be picking up the slack where services do not exist. I am working closely with the police service and other interested parties to ensure that we have sufficient crisis care, to enable the police to discharge their responsibilities adequately and in a safe way. We will continue to do that.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
My constituent Alice Sloman died during what should have been a routine MRI scan, following complications with the general anaesthetic that had been administered to her. Will the Minister agree to meet me and Alice’s parents to discuss the possibility of people, particularly those with existing conditions, having routine heart checks before such procedures?
Stephen Hammond
The Government express sincere condolences to my hon. Friend’s constituents. I would of course be happy to meet him and his constituents.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister support Plymouth’s Peninsula Dental School in training more dentists and encourage use of the underspend in the south-west dental spending pool?
Steve Brine
Yes. I would be interested to hear more about anything that can increase access to dentistry in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Next year marks 10 years since the passing of the Autism Act. What more can the Government do to support people who suffer from autism?
Caroline Dinenage
To mark the fact that it will be 10 years since the Autism Act was passed, we will start a formal review of that piece of legislation and the autism strategy, to ensure that they remain fit for purpose and heading in the right direction.[Official Report, 29 November 2018, Vol. 650, c. 4MC.]
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
My constituents Kirsteen and Wilma Ord have had their lives blighted by the Primodos hormone pregnancy drug. The review that the Government undertook was a whitewash, and now the further review, led by Baroness Cumberlege, will focus only on people in England. She has said that she will consult groups in Scotland, but drug regulation is reserved. What will the Minister do to promise that my constituents will not be let down again?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I met Baroness Cumberlege just last week, and I know she would be open to hearing representations from constituents in Scotland, to add to her understanding of this issue. We are determined to make full use of that review, so that we can learn lessons from this tragedy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Petition
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on the behalf of residents of the United Kingdom who are unpaid carers, including Katy Styles. Carers Rights Day is on Friday 30 November, and it is important that we show that unpaid carers are valued, and that we consider their need for a proper national carers strategy.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that unpaid carers require a National Carers Strategy; further that the Department of Health and Social Care asked unpaid carers for evidence for a Carers Strategy in 2016 and have failed to produce that Carers Strategy; and further notes an online petition (209717) on this subject has received 2,124 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the government to produce National Carers Strategy to support unpaid careers with wider changes to benefits, employment and health and care systems that unpaid carers need, resulting in recognition and valuing of unpaid carers contributions to society.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002298]
Ukraine-Russia Relations
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Russian action in the sea of Azov and the subsequent declaration of martial law in parts of Ukraine.
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated yesterday, we condemn Russia’s aggression against the Ukrainian vessels that sought to enter the sea of Azov on 25 November. We remain deeply concerned about the welfare of the Ukrainian sailors detained by Russia and call for their release urgently. Russia has again shown its willingness to violate Ukraine’s sovereignty, following the illegal annexation of Crimea and the construction of the Kerch bridge.
The United Kingdom remains committed to upholding the rules-based international system, which Russia continues to flout. Our position is clear: Russia’s actions are not in conformity with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea or the 2003 Russia-Ukraine bilateral agreement, which provides free passage in the sea of Azov, including for military ships. The United Kingdom ambassador reiterated that position at emergency meetings held yesterday at NATO, the European Union, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the UN Security Council.
In response to Russian aggression, the Ukrainian Parliament agreed to impose martial law in 10 Ukrainian regions for 30 days, commencing at 09:00 local time on 28 November. We welcome President Poroshenko’s reassurances that martial law will not be used to restrict the rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens, and that full mobilisation will be considered only in the case of further Russian aggression. We also welcome the Ukrainian Parliament’s resolution confirming that presidential elections will go ahead on 31 March 2019.
Mr Whittingdale
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this represents a serious escalation of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which has already led to over 10,000 deaths in Donbass since 2014? Will he recognise that we, as signatories to the Budapest memorandum, have a special responsibility? May I therefore welcome the support we are already giving, including the announcement by the Defence Secretary, following his own visit to Donbass very recently, that we will be deploying HMS Echo to the Black sea in 2019?
May I also welcome the Minister’s statement that what Russia has done is a clear breach of international law? Will he now specifically seek to find opportunities for the Prime Minister to discuss this with President Poroshenko? Will he reiterate his call for the immediate release of the 23 sailors now being held by the Russians, some of whom we understand are now in Simferopol in occupied Crimea and six of whom are badly wounded?
Will the Minister also look at imposing personal sanctions on the military personnel who have already been shown to be involved in co-ordinating this operation, as well as at increasing the economic sanctions on Russia, at least to the level that Canada and the United States are already imposing?
Alistair Burt
Again, I thank my right hon. Friend. Yes, he refers to a serious escalation that the recent incidents have illustrated, and the UK Government absolutely agree with him on that. I am pleased that he mentioned the recent visit of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary. On other proposals, we have no plans to change our conduct of activity in the area.
My right hon. Friend asked whether this is a breach of international law. The United Kingdom’s assessment is that, under the UN convention on the law of the sea, states can require any warship not in compliance with the laws and regulations of the coastal state to leave immediately. However, Russia’s actions in ramming, boarding and seizing vessels do not conform with the law of the sea. Russia’s actions were disproportionate, particularly as the ships had left the area and were returning to the Black sea. The 2003 sea of Azov bilateral treaty between Ukraine and Russia provides for the free passage of the military and civilian vessels of both states through the Kerch strait and in the sea of Azov, so my right hon. Friend is right to suggest that this is a breach of international law. I know the Prime Minister has today received a request to speak to the Ukrainian Prime Minister and that, in her busy timetable, she will be giving that urgent consideration.
On sanctions, measures have been taken in the past in relation to previous activity by Russia and sanctions were recently considered in relation to both the Crimea annexation and of course the building of the Kerch bridge. Any further sanctions will be considered in co-operation with European partners and others. It is very important that there is a sense of unity in response to what has taken place. The United Kingdom was active in calling a meeting of EU partners yesterday, and the other meetings that took place also saw a very strong response from the United Kingdom and others.
The House is right to see this as a serious matter, and it is important that it is not escalated further. That is why we have indeed called for the immediate release of the sailors, and we ask that all parties act with restraint but certainly recognise where the act of aggression came from in the first place.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I also thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) for securing it. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), sends her apologies for not being here to respond, but she is attending the annual lunch of the Labour Friends of Israel.
The events of the past 48 hours have been deeply troubling for all of us who want to see a return to peace, stability and the rule of law across the whole of Ukraine. Instead, incidents such as this make an already intense situation worse and risk widening the conflict. As the NATO spokesman said yesterday, we need to see calm and restraint on both sides and we need both sides to commit to de-escalation. In particular, Russia must abide by international law, as the Minister just stated, which means allowing Ukrainian ships unhindered access to Ukrainian ports on the sea of Azov. There is no excuse for blocking that access, let alone firing on the ships and seizing them. Will the Minister confirm whether he or his colleague will speak to their Russian counterparts and make clear when that discussion will take place?
At the same time, it has been worrying to see the reaction of the Ukrainian Government in declaring martial law. The Minister has said that he has secured agreement from the President that that will not lead to a cessation of any elections that are due to take place in the new year. While these issues are going on, proper democratic structures need to continue robustly to entrench Ukraine on the democratic footing from which we want it to move forward.
The Minister will agree that if the elections do not take place, that will be a backward step—not just for democracy, but for peace, stability and the rule of law, which we want to see across the whole of the region.
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his recognition that the Government’s basic position on international law and our response to this are correct. This recent action has come on the back of further disruption over a lengthy period. Since May 2018, Russia has conducted more than 200 stop-and-search boarding operations of civilian vessels transiting to or from the Ukrainian industrial ports of Mariupol and Berdyansk. The regularity of these boardings has increased over the summer, with Russian border guards deliberately delaying merchant vessels transiting the Kerch straits, and this activity culminated in what we saw the other day. It is important for there to be a strong and united international action.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned what he called a “worrying” response from Ukraine; I am not sure I would necessarily say that. In response to aggression from Russia, the Ukrainian Parliament has taken its own decision to impose martial law in 10 Ukrainian regions for 30 days. Bearing in mind the pressure that Ukraine is under, I should have thought that the position of this House would be strongly to support Ukrainian responses in situations of difficulty.
The United Kingdom did not secure President Poroshenko’s reassurance that martial law would not be used to restrict rights and freedoms—that decision was made absolutely by Ukrainian authorities; we did not need to secure it. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Ukrainian President also made the decision that elections would be unaffected on 31 March, so continued progress in relation to the democratic principles may continue.
We support the action that Ukraine has had to take in relation to this aggression, and our concern about Russia’s international position is clear, which is why we welcome the calls for de-escalation so that these matters do not get worse.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) on securing the urgent question, and—not that you need it from me—I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on seeing that this is a very urgent matter that needs to be dealt with.
We are now dealing with a country, in Russia, that is a pariah state. It occupies large sections of Ukraine illegally, and the very fact that it illegally occupies Crimea means that it has no rights under international law as regards this channel or any interventions to shipping that it has been making, notwithstanding the violent intervention made recently.
May I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister and Her Majesty’s Government to make a very big deal of this internationally at the UN, and as loudly as they possibly can? Will they say that this now means that we must have the highest level of sanctions and interventions because this country, which has intervened in Syria and in almost every other area of the conflict in the middle east and now in Ukraine, has to be brought to book—and that we have to do it now?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. I reiterate that we strongly condemn Russia’s act of aggression against Ukrainian vessels entering the sea of Azov. As he said, that act of aggression is a further example of Russia’s ongoing violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, following its illegal annexation of Crimea and illegal construction of the Kerch bridge earlier this year.
We remain clear in our support of the rules-based international system, which Russia continues to flout. Russia must not be allowed to establish new realities on the ground. We expect all parties to act with restraint and Russia to de-escalate the situation immediately, and we are indeed discussing with partners what concrete measures we can collectively take in response to Russia’s actions.
The EU has recently strengthened sanctions related to Crimea by listing individuals and entities responsible for the construction of the Kerch bridge, which connects Russia with illegally annexed Crimea. By acting in unity with our allies and partners, in the UN and the EU, we can achieve much.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I, too, thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) for securing this urgent question. First, let me be clear that we in the Scottish National party absolutely condemn the aggressive actions of Russia and its clear violation of international law. We join the Minister in calling for the release of sailors and others involved as soon as possible. May I also take this opportunity to commend the work of Ambassador Judith Gough and all her colleagues, as she does fantastic work in Kiev?
We know that Ukraine is aware that we are stronger because of respect for human rights, the rule of law and the right of opposition to question Governments. That is something Russia fails to understand—not just in Ukraine, but in the Russian Federation. Will the Minister set out what work is being done with European partners, given our relationship and how important Ukraine is to EU security? Will he set out what his co-operation is with EU partners? Will he also set out more details on how he is looking at individual sanctions, which have been mentioned?
Alistair Burt
I am very grateful for such a clear statement from colleagues on the other side of the House—in particular, the condemnation of Russia’s actions and the unequivocal call for the urgent release of the sailors. We welcome that. I thank the hon. Gentleman also for the support he gives to our ambassadors, not only in the region but at the UN, where Jonathan Allen made a particularly strong statement at the Security Council on this matter yesterday.
On the hon. Gentleman’s questions, the EU Political and Security Committee is meeting today to consider the EU’s practical response. As I said earlier, we are discussing with partners what concrete measures we can collectively take in response to Russia’s actions. He can be in no doubt, because of the clear statement by the Foreign Secretary yesterday and clear statements made by ambassadors, that we will continue to do exactly what it takes to try to de-escalate the situation but make clear where we believe the fault lies.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
May I, again, thank you for giving adequate time to this urgent matter, Mr Speaker? This is not the first time we have found ourselves discussing Russia’s pariah nature in this House, nor is it the first time we have seen Russia committing acts of aggression—or, indeed, warlike acts—against countries in the region. We have even debated its warlike acts in our own country. So this is a matter not about a foreign nation about which we know little, but about ourselves and our own security.
Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that every time we see one of these acts, we see a moment of Russian weakness being expressed through violence, we see a falling oil price being covered up by an act of aggression, and we see riots about the pensioners who have been stripped of their assets by this brutal regime being covered up by further acts of war? Does this not mean that we must stand with the Russian people? We must stand with the democrats, the journalists and the civic activists in Russia, and defend their interests. By doing so, we stand against those who seek to profit from them—not only the warmongers, but those in our own House, even, who are profiting from Russian business in this country and in the United States.
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee makes a series of strong and clear points. He sets out again the concerns the UK shares about a series of actions that has also caused concern abroad. He also made the wider point about the impact of actions on the people of Russia. I should add that Ambassador Jonathan Allen concluded his statement on Ukraine yesterday by saying:
“As my Prime Minister recently made clear, like others here today we remain open to a different relationship with Russia: one where Russia desists from these attacks that undermine international treaties and international security and desists from actions which undermine the territorial integrity of its neighbours and instead acts together with the international community to fulfil the common responsibilities we share as Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council. And we hope that the Russian state chooses to take this path.”
He sets out clearly why that should be the case, and why a different relationship is open to Russia, but it must entail a change in behaviour.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. I particularly welcome the description of the ongoing and consistent provocative actions. This has not been an isolated incident; this has been happening and escalating for some time. I endorse the call for unity, calm and restraint, but we must be aware that Russia is seeking other consequences: a wider destabilisation of the region. It is important that we in this House and across the NATO alliance are unified in calling not only for freedom of navigation, and for the release of the ships and the sailors, but for Russia to understand that actions have consequences. We need to be willing to stand by those consequences.
Mr Speaker
I think the question was a rhetorical one, and therefore it requires an even shorter reply than the Minister might otherwise be inclined to offer to the House.
Alistair Burt
I will offer a very brief answer, but first, let me say that I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that the hon. Lady is the new president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. We all congratulate her on that. It is a singular honour for not only her, but this House, and we know that she will conduct herself extremely well. The way in which she put her question and the issues that she raised demonstrated that she has a very clear grasp of the facts, and she will be an important addition in that role.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Will Ministers look again at what further practical assistance we can give to Ukraine, either by increasing our military training or, given Russia’s interference with maritime trade in the sea of Azov, by helping to strengthen vulnerable ports such as Mariupol by, for example, improving the railway links? That will make it less vulnerable to Russian pressure.
Alistair Burt
As luck would have it, I have some information here about the UK’s support to Ukraine, and I fully support my right hon. Friend’s comments. The UK is providing some £30 million this year to Ukraine to support a range of areas, including governance reform, accountability, communications and human rights. The UK is also providing £14 million in relation to conflict, security and stability projects to bolster Ukrainian defence reform. We have provided up to £3 million of new funding this year for developing independent media and countering Russian disinformation, alongside £2 million provided through existing projects. The Defence Secretary was there recently, as my right hon. Friend will know, and he is having further talks with his US counterpart this weekend. On practical support for Ukraine, including on the defence side, the UK will certainly continue to be committed to Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Defensive non-escalatory military training delivered through Operation Orbital is fundamental to that support.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
President Putin’s actions have redrawn, by force, the borders of a European nation for the first time since the second world war, and we must never forget or normalise that. We are discussing just the latest in a series of acts of aggression, so will the Government commit to ensuring that they will do everything they can, and to ensuring that their influence on other European nations will not be lessened when—if—the UK comes out of the EU next year?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman, who has great knowledge of these matters, puts it extremely well. He references the latest in a pattern of acts of aggression, and welcomes the UK’s support in responding to it, in co-ordination with others. He can take it from me—I say this very clearly—that there will be no diminution in our support and our working with European partners, no matter what happens in relation to other events next year.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In 2015, following a great deal of international pressure, France cancelled two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships that were destined for Russia because of the situation in Ukraine. What more will be done at the European Union Political and Security Committee, to which the Minister referred, to impress on our European partners in particular that it is wholly unacceptable at this time to be engaging with the Russian Federation on arms sales?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his description of what happened. He emphasises how important it is for united and collective action to be taken on this issue. It is important that nations work together on this, and his comments about dealing with the sort of supply that was involved with Mistral are well taken. The United Kingdom will be pressing this point to the various committees that we are attending as we speak.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary made an extremely powerful and well received speech yesterday at the launch of the holodomor exhibition, sponsored by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), in which he referred to the close, supportive relationship between the United Kingdom and Ukraine. In that context, will the Minister agree to send on behalf of the House our profound sympathy and support to the friends and families of all the sailors who have been injured and imprisoned illegally? What assistance can we offer in the elections in March to support the restraint shown by President Poroshenko?
Alistair Burt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the Foreign Secretary’s appearance at the holodomor event; it matters greatly to the United Kingdom and the Foreign Secretary, which is why he was there. The hon. Gentleman’s message of support to the families caught up not only in this detention but in others is well made, and it will certainly be conveyed to them. On support for governance, we are already providing £11 million to support reform in Ukraine through the good governance fund, and there are a wide range of programmes to help Ukraine drive forward governance, economic and political reform, and promote greater accountability and transparency. All that will help to make sure that the election process is exactly what this House would expect.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Sadly, Ukraine suffered hugely at the hands of the Russian and Soviet authorities in the last century, including through the unspeakable cruelty of the holodomor. Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of sadness that in the modern era, when we really all should know better, Ukraine is again on the end of unjustified violence and aggression from Russia?
Alistair Burt
My right hon. Friend’s concerns are echoed throughout the House. The support for Ukraine in its present difficulties is well expressed both by Members and the actions of Her Majesty’s Government.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
For six months, Russia has been stopping and inspecting vessels entering and leaving Ukrainian ports in the sea of Azov. That leads to delays and greatly increased costs, and it affects not only Ukrainian vessels, but those flying EU flags. Will Her Majesty’s Government first make the strongest representations to Russia that it should desist from this practice, and secondly seek legal advice on what financial recompense the owners of these ships can seek?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. On the economic damage, we estimate at present that Mariupol and Berdiansk have seen economic throughput reduce in their ports by some 43% and 30% respectively in the past nine months, so the actions that he referred to have had a profound effect. I am not personally aware of the legal position on redress, but I am sure that the United Kingdom Government will do anything that they can to provide support.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
HMS Echo is due to be deployed to the Black sea in the new year in support of Ukraine. She is a lightly armed oceanographic survey vessel. Would not it be a strong message to Russia if we were to bring that deployment forward, and perhaps also, without any form of escalation, consider deploying her to the Azov sea?
Alistair Burt
I am not aware of any plans to change any of the deployments that have been planned and considered. Of course, while we must continue to do exactly what we have said we will, no one is looking for any escalation in these circumstances.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Ukraine-Russia relations have deteriorated to an all-time low. There have been evidential reports of the persecution of Christians in eastern Ukraine, occupied by Russia. Pastors of churches have gone missing and nobody knows their whereabouts, and churches have been desecrated and destroyed. I ask the Minister gently: has he had the opportunity to highlight and raise these issues with Russia, and to confirm support for Ukrainian citizens expressing their faith and worshipping their God in the way they wish to?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question; no one could be a more determined supporter not only of the rights of Christians in other countries, but of freedom of belief and religion for all, which he champions. The United Kingdom believes that Russia must uphold its obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law, and we call on Russia to release immediately over 70 political prisoners detained in Russia and Crimea. I will ensure that his comments about minority faith prisoners and detainees are conveyed to the Minister responsible.
Alistair Burt
No one benefits from actions that are contrary to international law. No one benefits from disruption. The only people who benefit are those who can demonstrate a clear and concise response to such aggression in an effort to return the world to a rules-based system, where there will be de-escalation, and collective security for all because it is not provoked by unreasonable actions.
Mr Speaker
I hope that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) will have his question framed, but I give him due warning: if he does not, I will.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
To follow the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), would it not be better to revisit that deployment—not necessarily its time or place, but the type of ship that we send? HMS Echo is a survey ship. Would it not be better to send a ship that can defend itself in these waters, given the events at the weekend? Do those events not also show that it is time for Her Majesty’s Government to have a more muscular and robust policy on Nord Stream 2?
Alistair Burt
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is sitting next to me, assures me that the survey ship HMS Echo has appropriate armament, but we have to be very careful. I make it clear that there is no change planned to any deployments at this stage, which is important, and I have no instructions on any such action, but it would have to be considered extremely carefully. What the United Kingdom wants to do is stand up for international law, urge others to do the same, see a release of the sailors who have been detained, make it very clear to Russia what it is doing by risking the actions that it is taking and, while not seeking to escalate anything further, be very firm in supporting an international response, because we must see an end to these actions.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
There is real concern that the escalation of Russian action in Crimea will lead to real human suffering, and much more of it. What more can be done to ensure access to Crimea for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, so that they can look into this?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend is right: we are very keen for that access to be given, and it is unfortunate that it has not been. Colleagues at the United Nations mission in New York will certainly continue to make this point very strongly.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
More than two years have elapsed since Ukraine referred the issue of access to the sea of Azov to the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague. Why does the Minister think that the process has taken so long, and what can he do to try to speed that up to a conclusion?
Alistair Burt
As a former lawyer, I have only a possible explanation of why some of these things—particularly, technical actions in respect of the law of the sea, where claim, counter-claim and many other things need to be discussed—take so long. I have no specific information about why this in particular has taken so long, but the Minister for Europe and the Americas will respond to that by letter. If these claims cannot be decided and international arbitration does not work, the international rules-based order falls to the ground, so it is to the benefit of all states—even those who feel that a resolution might not be to their advantage—to do everything in their power to see these matters resolved.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Minister has eloquently told us what the FCO thinks the situation is. Will he explain what the FCO thinks the situation may become? Is what has happened recently just a continuation of low-level aggression? Is it a ramping up of economic warfare by a blockade of Berdiansk and Mariupol? Or is it part of a shaping operation for a more violent assault on Mariupol? If it is one of the last two, what contingency measures is the FCO thinking of taking?
Alistair Burt
I know that my hon. Friend has a deep-rooted knowledge of this subject, but he asks the UK Government to speculate on a series of potential outcomes, which I do not think would be wise. The point of his question, however, is to illustrate that from the actions already taken there could be further more serious consequences. Given the concern with which he asked his question—concern that I am sure is echoed by the House—I should be very clear that the UK does not want further escalation. Risks have been taken in the actions we have seen, and it is essential, if those risks are to be de-escalated, that Russia recognises its actions and the concern they have caused, and changes them.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
We know that Russia has been flexing its muscles across the Black sea region for quite a while now, so it was disappointing that the Black sea was not a specific agenda item at the NATO summit in Brussels in July. Can the Minister assure the House that he is pushing NATO allies, including Turkey, which has in the past shown sympathy for Russia, to develop a coherent NATO strategy for the Black sea?
Alistair Burt
As I indicated earlier, there were meetings yesterday of the UN Security Council, NATO, EU and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. I cannot give a clear answer, because I do not know the technical answer, but given the current level of aggression in the Black sea and the degree of concern raised, and given that the international community responded so quickly yesterday, I suspect that the Black sea is very much a topic of concern. It certainly is for the UK, and it will indeed be pressed.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
What are we doing to keep open the Kerch strait?
Alistair Burt
As far as I am aware, the strait is open, but it will be essential to demonstrate that there is free passage without hindrance, and in the near future all actions will be carefully scrutinised. There are ways of ensuring a good international presence and that sea lanes stay open, but any action must be taken collectively. My hon. Friend’s point was well made.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Minister has done an excellent job, as always, of answering our questions, but this does smack a little of complacency. Let us remember that 10,000 people have died in the Ukraine conflict, and that Ukraine has been crying out since 2014, since the annexation of Crimea, for us to do something about the sea of Azov. Its economy is being strangled by the economic blockade. What measures are being taken to support the Ukrainian economy? It is very welcome that the House passed the Magnitsky amendment, but what steps have been taken, if any, to follow up on that amendment, to draw up a list of individuals who should be sanctioned, and to put the amendment into practice? To date, we have little or no evidence of the Government doing anything about that.
Alistair Burt
In all fairness, the fact that I answer carefully and honestly in relation to these actions must not be considered any form of complacency. I am keen to set out for the record the action the UK has already taken in response to this incident: our convening of the EU meeting, the meetings at the UN, NATO and the OSCE, the clear statement by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, the statement by Jonathan Allen at the UN Security Council, and the work already done on sanctions, including the sanctions on individuals, and the sanctions following the annexation of Crimea and the construction of the Kerch bridge. In addition, the EU’s Political and Security Committee is meeting today, and further action is being considered in company with others. All that is a clear and definitive response to what has happened. Action has been taken against individuals, and further action can be considered, but the point I was making was that collective action was the most important thing. The international condemnation is clear. There is no complacency in anything I have said.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
This latest act of aggression is yet another reminder that Russia does not care about rules, and only about realpolitik. That fact must inform the UK’s approach. Will my right hon. Friend say more about the steps we are taking together with our allies to make sure that Russia is practically deterred from further action?
Alistair Burt
I hope that the actions the UK has taken quickly, in convening meetings of states and speaking very clearly at the UN Security Council yesterday—I commend to the House the statement by our deputy permanent representative Jonathan Allen yesterday, and I will make sure that a copy is placed in the Library so that colleagues can see it—made clear our concerns, and how we are using our international position and our position on various bodies to bring other states together, because collective action is needed.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Russian ambassador to the UN, Dmitry Polyanskiy, claims that Ukrainian ships “illegally crossed Russia’s border” and that the
“responsibility lies with those who gave the illegal order”.
This completely ignores the fact that the Kerch strait and the sea of Azov are shared territorial waters, as designated by a 2003 treaty. Will the Minister call on Russia, both directly and through the EU, to allow the backlogged civilian cargo ships to pass through the Kerch strait, as they are legally permitted to do?
Alistair Burt
We do not agree with the interpretation of the law of the sea offered yesterday at the UN Security Council. The deputy permanent representative said about the action and the use of military force:
“This further demonstrates Russia’s ongoing contempt for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and its contempt for the global rules-based international system which this organisation serves to uphold”.
The Government fully support that statement.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
What representations were made to the Russians during their illegal construction of the Kerch bridge, the completion of which has allowed President Putin to tighten his grip on the whole region and precipitated this latest illegal act?
Alistair Burt
I do not have that information, as I was not in this position at the time, but I can make it very clear to the House, as I did earlier, that action was certainly taken subsequently by way of sanctions imposed on those responsible for the building of the illegal bridge. I have no knowledge of what representations were made at that time, simply because I was not there.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on his calm and measured tone. Does he know whether there will be any NATO vessels in attendance to provide mutual support to HMS Echo when it is in the Black sea in the new year?
Alistair Burt
I understand from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), that there are NATO vessels in the area, but I am not aware of any particular deployment to support HMS Echo. That would be a matter for further consideration.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
As the Minister is aware, I sit on the Council of Europe, which Russia is trying to get back into. Will he please ensure that serious consideration is given in the Council of Ministers, through our representative there, to only allowing the Russians back if they fulfil their national and international obligations and do not break them?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend’s intervention makes clear what the House wants to see. The House is not in conflict with the people of Russia, but as the deputy permanent representative made clear yesterday, actions taken by Russia make it difficult, if not impossible, to have the sort of relationships that are necessary and that my hon. Friend is looking for. The UK is open to that and urges Russia to respond to international concerns and to set out to our mutual advantage a new relationship with other states based clearly on a rules-based international system.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
As well as the exhibition in the House, does the Minister agree that it is resonant that last weekend there were many commemorations of the holodomor across the UK, including in St Anne’s cathedral in Leeds, and that one lesson is that just as fearless independent journalism was needed in the 1930s from people such as Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge to expose the holodomor, so it is now needed to expose the fake news coming from the Kremlin?
Alistair Burt
As I mentioned earlier, we are supporting the provision of money for journalism that is based on the truth and counters disinformation, but the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the importance of investigative journalism are clear. We support the actions of correspondents who go to the most difficult areas of conflict at great personal risk, and we support campaigns designed to make sure that journalists are not targets.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Incredibly, Russia still denies having a military presence in Ukraine, although we know that Russian troops and tanks are there in very significant numbers taking part in a war that is claiming some dozen Ukrainian lives every week. Now that we have seen this blatant, unacceptable and proven act of Russian aggression, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK will take firm action, including the provision of hard military support?
Alistair Burt
As I have reiterated throughout, it is essential that responses are co-ordinated and collective. The United Kingdom has made its position extremely clear at the United Nations, in collective meetings today and yesterday, and in the Foreign Secretary’s statement. We will work in concert with our partners in seeking to reverse these actions and achieve our objective, which is stability and mutual security in the region—mutual security that is based on respect for territorial integrity and a rules-based international system.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On the back of the Russian Federation’s illegal and immoral actions in Ukraine, the President of Ukraine is flirting with martial law. Once assumed, martial law powers are rarely given up willingly, and unconsolidated democracies that take them rarely survive. In that context, can the Minister assure the House that the links between the President of Ukraine and Vladimir Putin’s right-hand man, Viktor Medvedchuk, will be fully investigated and exposed, and that we, as a member of the European Union—while we still are—will fully push the rest of the European Union to get its act together and ensure that more solid sanctions are imposed on the Russian Federation?
Alistair Burt
As I mentioned earlier, the imposition of martial law by the Ukrainian Parliament was announced yesterday, and will come into effect tomorrow at 0900 hours. We welcome what the President said in relation to the limitation of those powers, and we are monitoring very carefully what the impact and effects may be.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Sending an oceanographic survey ship sometime in 2019 does not exactly strike me as a robust response to Russian aggression against a friendly state. Russian ships and submarines go up and down the English channel unimpeded all the time. Can the Minister tell the House whether a NATO ship has ever gone under the newly constructed Kerch strait bridge, and when the next NATO vessel will visit the sea of Azov?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking such detailed questions. I do not have that information, but I will ensure that he is written to.
Alistair Burt
A copy will be placed in the Library of the House at your request, Mr Speaker.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
May I urge my right hon. Friend not simply to ignore the Council of Europe when he considers European action? Will he support the work that I and others have been doing to prevent the readmission of Russia to that organisation?
Alistair Burt
As my hon. Friend will know, I do not ignore anything related to Europe—either the European Union or the Council of Europe. I welcome the collective action that we take through our friends, and will continue to do so. I value the Council of Europe, and my hon. Friend’s expression of support for it is well made.
Kevin Foster
Thank you, Mr Speaker. There was the usual contest for last!
The Minister will be aware of the many parallels with past situations. Vladimir Putin’s approach seems similar to the process of heating a frog in water: if he keeps pushing up the heat, it will not produce an instant reaction. Can the Minister reassure me that he is talking to other nations about what will happen if Putin continues to push down this power? We obviously do not want to see an escalation, but let us be clear that it is Russia that keeps escalating these situations.
Alistair Burt
I know from my experience in other parts of the international field that what my hon. Friend has said is correct. There is always concern if a state seeks to demonstrate its power through means that are questionable, or sometimes downright illegal. States will sometimes push the envelope. The risk is that at some stage there will be a miscalculation and a confrontation. The United Kingdom will do all in its power to prevent such a thing, but the risk is taken by others, and my hon. Friend’s point is well made.
Robert Courts
Persistent attempts to destabilise Ukraine’s economy are clearly unacceptable. What further practical assistance can we offer Ukraine?
Alistair Burt
As I illustrated earlier, there is direct support for economic reform in Ukraine and direct support to assist other reforms, including those relating to good governance and technical matters. Support is also being given in relation to information gathering and the need to combat disinformation. In all those respects the United Kingdom’s support is clear, as has been our response to these particular incidents. My hon. Friend may be assured that our concern will continue, and that further support will be made available to Ukraine as and when the United Kingdom judges it necessary.
Minimum Service Obligation (High Street Cashpoints)
Tuesday 27th November 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Minimum Service Obligation (High Street Cashpoints) Bill 2017-19 View all Minimum Service Obligation (High Street Cashpoints) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring a Bill to require banks to provide cash machines to be made available on designated streets; to enable local authorities to designate streets that require cash machines in towns of more than 5,000 residents; and for connected purposes.
While that may not roll off the tongue, at a time when 2.2 million people in the UK rely almost entirely on cash it is critical that people can gain access to their money easily and free of charge, particularly people on low incomes, older people and people in rural areas. However, figures show that since the beginning of the year, free cash machines have been closing at an unprecedented rate. That has alarmed consumer groups, the Federation of Small Businesses, and, as their support for the Bill demonstrates, Members of Parliament.
I was inspired to introduce the Bill by the experience of residents of Battle, in my constituency in East Sussex. That historic town was the scene of the battle of Hastings. In 1066, Norman invaders marched from the constituency port of Pevensey to give King Harold and his men six of the best. Nowadays, Battle residents are having to make a similarly lengthy journey if they merely wish to access, and spend, the cash in their bank accounts. That is largely due to the withdrawal from Battle’s High Street of the big four banks—with them went their cash machines. The last to go was NatWest.
I wrote to Royal Bank of Scotland, the owner of NatWest, asking it to retain the cash machine. It refused, pointing to the 24/7 provision of a machine outside another store. When that machine, the last 24/7 cashpoint in High Street, was lost this month, I asked RBS to reinstate its cash machine or move one up the road from an out-of-town petrol station. It refused. That demonstrates the need for the Government to take action and require the financial services industry to provide at least one 24/7 cash machine in the high street of every town in the United Kingdom with a population of at least 5,000. I make that suggestion in the hope that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will accept it as one of the key strands of the forthcoming review and remodelling of the high street that was announced in this year’s Budget.
It may help if I try to put my finger on the reason for the decline in cash machines, and hence the reason why intervention in the shape of the Bill is needed. Earlier this year, LINK, the UK’s largest cash machine network, announced that it would go ahead with plans to cut its interchange fee by 20% over the next five years. Hundreds of free ATMs have already closed as a result. The interchange fee is the amount that is paid every time a customer uses a free ATM, which funds the entire free-to-use ATM network.
The change was designed to reduce the number of machines in areas where there were too many, while retaining the geographical coverage of ATMs across the UK. That has failed. In 2018, analysis of LINK data showed that in the six months following LINK’s initial announcement—from November 2017 to April 2018—the rate of cashpoint closures increased significantly. It went from about 50 a month in 2015 to 300 a month during that period. LINK’s own figures show that between January and June this year, 500 cashpoints closed every month.
In January 2018, the consumer group Which? conducted a study of ATM provision across the UK, and identified more than 200 communities with poor ATM provision or no cash machines at all. The survey also demonstrated the impact that a potential reduction in the number of free-to-use ATMs would have on the millions of consumers who use the network. Overall, it identified heavy consumer dependency on ATM usage: just under half those surveyed used a cashpoint at least once a week, while four out of five said that access to the free-to-use network was important to their daily lives and payment for goods and services. The removal of free-to-use access would leave one in 10 struggling to make payments, shutting many consumers out of local shops and services. A reduction would also lead to one in seven being deterred from using outlets that accept cash only, placing a strain on consumers and retailers alike.
The threat of ATM closures is particularly pertinent in the context of widespread bank branch closures across the country. Research shows that free ATMs are an important alternative for consumers trying to access their cash when their local branch closes, but latest figures show that bank branches are closing at a rate of 60 a month, leaving people struggling to access the financial services they rely on across the UK.
The UK has lost almost two thirds of its bank branches in the past 30 years. According to parliamentary records, there were 20,583 branches in 1988, but analysis of current account providers shows that there are just 7,586 today. So far this year 670 branches have closed or are scheduled for closure, putting us on course to overtake the number of 2017 closures.
While there has been a decline in cash use, cash remains immensely popular and important for consumers. Almost three quarters of adults in the UK say they use cash at least two or three times a week.
Some might say that cash provision should be taken up by the post office network. I know that the Government recognise the important role post offices play by providing access to cash and banking services. Under the banking framework, 99% of UK personal banking customers and 95% of UK business banking customers can do their day-to-day banking at the post office. That agreement, in operation since January 2017, marked the biggest expansion of face-to-face banking access in a generation. However, post offices and postmasters and postmistresses do not feel that the banks are remunerating them properly for these transactions, and I fear that many will stop providing the service, just as LINK has ceased providing cash machines.
High street banks have a very special place in my heart. I spent my vacations during A-levels and university working as a cashier for Abbey National in Buckinghamshire. I was responsible for the morning refill of the cash machine—a job they might not have given me if they had known I would become an MP. Many a happy hour was spent with my customers, from “accidentally on purpose” setting off the cashier security screens when a customer was rude to colleagues, to repeatedly asking our favourite customer, Mr R. Head, to produce his identification so that we could roll about on the floor laughing when his driving licence showed his first name to be Richard, to taking a phone call from an irate customer concerned about overdraft charges and then phoning the cheque centre with the opening line of “Some old bag is complaining about racking up charges” only to be informed by the voice at the other end of the line, “This is the old bag speaking. I suggest you reimburse the charges or I will have you fired.” I had rung the customer back by mistake—a schoolboy error.
Fortunately, my pursuit of customer satisfaction improved steadily over the years prior to becoming my constituency MP. When vulnerable constituents, who are the most in need of our support, cannot access their cash and spend it in support of the stores that make up our vibrant high streets, something is not only wrong, but something needs to be done. I therefore recommend that this Bill becomes law.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Huw Merriman, Simon Hoare, Stephen Crabb, Kevin Hollinrake, Daniel Zeichner, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Frank Field, John Lamont, Henry Smith, Ian Paisley, Sammy Wilson and Louise Haigh present the Bill.
Huw Merriman accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019, and to be printed (Bill 297).
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 27th November 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 View all Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 108-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (12 Oct 2018)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a great pleasure to move the Second Reading motion. It is possible that in Westminster at the moment other matters are catching Members’ attention and that the focus of the House has not been sufficiently on the Bill, but I am delighted to have the opportunity to move the motion. The Bill has already been considered in the other place and takes an important step forward for our courts system.
Our judiciary, together with our courts and tribunal service, are rightly regarded as among the finest and most independent in the world. However, the way our courts and tribunals work cannot stand still. They must be able to meet the demands of delivering modern-day justice, meet the needs of the society they serve, and administer justice in the most effective and efficient way.
The justice system must work for all those who use it, as well as for the judges and legal professionals who work in it. That means realising the huge potential of new technology and the law tech revolution to improve people’s experience of and access to the justice system and to open up new routes to justice. It is certainly my determination that the UK should be seen as being at the forefront of adopting new technology, whether in our courts and tribunal system, which is the issue before us today, or more widely, with legal professionals making use of technology. That is one of the reasons that we have instituted a law tech committee, led by Christina Blacklaws of the Law Society, which is designed to take us forward in that area. It is an important part of what we need to do.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may be aware that I did an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship in the law with judges, and my experience of the different courts I went to showed the enormous gap between the commercial courts, which were technologically very superior, and the tribunal system, where we might as well have been using a quill pen. Is this reform going to solve that problem?
Mr Gauke
Our court reform programme as a whole, which I will come on to, will ensure that we use technology wherever possible. It is right that we embrace that. The Bill is part of the process—it is not all of the process—that will ensure that we modernise. I have cited in the past ways in which artificial intelligence, for example, is being used within the legal profession. An example I have given is a case where AI was used to check a number of contracts to spot potential errors. The rate of success of the AI was somewhat better than that of the experienced lawyers, and if I remember rightly the task was done in 26 seconds rather than 92 minutes. I make that point to illustrate the opportunities in terms of technology and the law.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Innovation and modernisation are vital, but will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to recognise that the single most important strength of our judicial system is the judiciary who work in it and that everything must be done to ensure that we have a broad pipeline of talent so that they continue to be the best in the world?
Mr Gauke
I very much agree. We have a judicial system that is widely respected around the world for its independence and excellence, and that must long continue. I suspect that my hon. Friend is hinting at the question of how we can get more outstanding candidates to apply to the judiciary. It is right that we should address that challenge. He is right to suggest that this is one of our strengths as a country. It will be important in the years ahead as we leave the European Union that our legal system should continue to be widely respected. I believe that there are great opportunities for the UK to become even stronger as a legal centre, and I am keen for that to happen.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Robert Neill
The Secretary of State makes an important point about the balance that needs to be struck in these areas. He has given an example of the use of artificial intelligence being appropriate for the checking of documents, and work on dealing with disclosure parameters has already been successfully piloted by the Serious Fraud Office. Would he concede that there is a distinction to be drawn between those essentially transactional but important operations, such as disclosure searches, and the application of human judgment that should be brought to, for example, a charging decision by the SFO? Does he agree that any determination of the facts or issues of a case should clearly be done by a human judge, having heard the arguments, and that their workload could be slimmed down but not replaced by the use of AI?
Mr Gauke
I agree. I note that my hon. Friends are all quick to make the case for the importance of the skilled human being in these circumstances, and rightly so. We must remember that technology is our servant and not our master.
I make these points because our court reform programme is being undertaken in the context of an embracive technology and the Bill is an aspect of that programme. I will digress no further because it is not essentially a technology-based Bill. However, to follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the importance of skilled individuals will continue to be key, and the Bill will ensure that the time of our most skilled individuals—our judges—is deployed as efficiently as possible.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I have to say that innovation and modernisation are not normally things that we associate with our courts. Given the feedback that has already come in on things such as making responses on juries online, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not only useful to the courts but makes life easier for the public?
Mr Gauke
Absolutely; that is a key point. Perhaps my hon. Friend has set my Department the challenge of ensuring that people associate the modernisation of technology with the court system. We will know that we have succeeded when he tells us that that is the case. He makes the strong point that this is ultimately about delivering justice. We need to have strong support for the process involved and ensure the satisfaction of those who need to resolve a dispute or to undertake a process. The early signs from our work with online divorce processes are encouraging, and the feedback has been very positive.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I rise as the co-chair of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group. I am interested in what the Secretary of State is saying about artificial intelligence, but it seems to me that one of the driving forces behind the Bill is not necessarily to improve the administration of justice but to cut costs by pushing workloads down the grades so that staff will be taking on additional work above their current grade without additional remuneration. Surely he should recognise that making savings in the application of justice comes at a cost to staff and to the public’s experience of justice.
Mr Gauke
I do not think that the hon. Lady is correct in the association that she makes. The reality is that we have to ensure that our resources are deployed as efficiently as possible. That is to the benefit of the system as a whole. I will make the case in more detail as to why the steps taken in the Bill to give authorised staff greater responsibility to undertake some roles that they are currently unable to undertake will be to the benefit of the system as a whole. I make no apology for wanting to find efficiencies within the system, but this is in the context of a £1 billion court reform programme. Those efficiencies can improve the experience of the users of the system, and could also ensure that judges will be able to use their time in the areas that are most useful to them. Indeed, the experience of authorised Courts and Tribunals Service staff will be a more positive one, as they will be able to make a greater contribution to the efficient running of the court system.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Setting aside the whys and wherefores of the Bill, may I invite my right hon. Friend to confirm from the Dispatch Box that the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers between the judiciary and Parliament will be absolutely sacrosanct and at the heart of everything that he, his ministerial colleagues and the Department will do? This is an issue of great concern to many people, irrespective of the Bill, and people always need to have faith that this central pillar of how we are governed in this country will remain intact, protected and preserved.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to respond to that point. The independence of the judiciary is at the heart of our system and a long-standing part of it. It is as important, if not more important, than it has ever been that we reiterate that and support those institutions. As I was saying a moment ago, this is a big part of what our nation is about, and in the years ahead, after we have left the European Union, one of the most important institutions to us will be our independent judiciary. It is a large part of what the UK is about and of how we should project ourselves around the rest of the world.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a strong case. Perhaps this is for another time, but in the context of having a strong, independent judiciary, will he look again at the rather arbitrary cap of the age of 70 for magistrates? We have many really qualified people who wish to contribute to the independent justice system of this country but who are prevented from doing so simply because of their age.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, although he takes me away a little from the terms of the Bill. I realise that there is a debate about that matter, and there are arguments either way about the current age limit. I have certainly received representations calling for an increase on the current age of 70, and we continue to look closely at those arguments. I believe that there has to be an age limit, and it is a question of judgment as to what it should be. I would be delighted to discuss this with my hon. Friend in the Tea Room if the opportunity to do so should arise.
Alex Chalk
Building on the point that was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) about independence, may we have an assurance that under the Bill the procedure rule committees that decide what the authorised staff can do will be able to exercise that discretion free from any interference from the centre, so that they can ensure that only those jobs that ought properly to be delegated to those staff are so delegated, and that extraneous considerations such as cost need not be forced upon them when they make their decisions?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend brings me back to the Bill and makes a good point—one which came up on several occasions during the deliberations in the other place about the extent to which we should be prescriptive, or whether powers should be left with the rule committees. I share his instinct that as much as possible should be left to the rule committees, because they are best placed to make such assessments. Indeed, that leads to points made by distinguished retired judges in the other place about not being over-prescriptive. Such matters may be a point of discussion this afternoon or at the Bill’s later stages.
I now turn to the Bill in greater detail. The measures will help to provide the greater flexibility and responsiveness that we need within our court system. That includes freeing up judges’ time from the most routine tasks associated with court cases. The Bill will build on existing powers that already enable staff in most courts and tribunals to be authorised to exercise some of the functions of judges. It will continue to allow appropriately qualified and experienced staff in the civil, family and magistrates courts, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Court of Protection and tribunals to be authorised to carry out uncontroversial and straightforward judicial functions under judicial supervision. The Bill will enable those arrangements to be extended for the first time to the Crown court, where court officers can only currently undertake formal and administrative matters. Allowing court and tribunal staff to exercise a wider range of judicial functions will potentially free judges up from undertaking more regular tasks, such as changing the start time of a hearing or changing a pre-trial preparation hearing date, so that they can focus on the more substantive matters of the case.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s amendments in the other place to paragraphs 32 and 44 of the schedule, which were secured by my noble Friend Lord Marks, because they ensure that only a judge will have the power to deprive people of their liberty or eject them from their family home. As we give court staff some more powers, it is important that we set down some markers for the types of decisions that should be reserved for trained professional judges.
Mr Gauke
Indeed, and I will turn to that point in a moment. I hope that the clarification provided by those amendments will be widely welcomed in this House. The passage of this Bill in the other place was characterised by a constructive and co-operative approach from both sides, and I hope that that will continue to be the case—I suspect it will, but we shall see—because the point of those amendments was to provide particular protections. Other issues debated in the other place included suggestions about being more prescriptive. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), it is right that we use the judicially led rule committees in many of those areas, but the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) makes a perfectly fair point.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He is talking about the use of judicial time, so will he explain in a bit more detail how the measures will address the problem of the backlog of cases and what effect the Bill is likely to have on improving the current situation?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend raises a good point that comes back to how we ensure that judges’ time is used most effectively, freeing them up from the most routine tasks, such as changing the start time of the hearing, and enabling them to focus on more complex matters. They could then ensure that case preparation and management was resolved proportionately and at an appropriate level. That could also help to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the court tribunal system. There is an opportunity to ensure greater consistency in the current arrangements, and it is right that we strengthen safeguards, as has already been touched upon.
It is important to guarantee the independence of all authorised staff when they are exercising judicial functions. Clause 3 will bring authorised staff under the leadership of senior lawyers. Although we are removing the post of justices’ clerk from the statute, the functions that such clerks undertake will continue to be carried out by heads of legal operations, who have a much greater leadership role across all jurisdictions. The change will ensure that we make all authorised staff ultimately accountable and subject to the direction of the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals.
John Howell
My right hon. Friend is being generous with his time. The place where these changes can have the most effect is in the tribunal system. I have sat through tribunals that have lasted for days for no good reason, tying up three independent assessors. Surely, it is there that the changes he proposes can have the biggest effect.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend may well be right. The Bill of course relates to courts and tribunals, and it is important to bear in mind the impact on tribunals. Tribunals perhaps do not always attract the attention that they might, but they play a vital role within our justice system. If we can find ways to improve their efficiency, we should all welcome that. That is a key part of what this Bill is about.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the start times of hearings. As he will know, Northallerton magistrates court, which serves many of my constituents, is due to close under these reforms. It is important that people can get to a hearing on time, so will requiring people to travel further to a more distant court be taken into account? Will there be mitigation, such as video links, and will those things be in place and operating before the court closes?
Mr Gauke
Journey times are taken into account. I am conscious that substantial issues can arise in rural areas, but journey times are considered. As for technology, if I remember correctly, the change at Northallerton magistrates court is conditional upon ensuring that the technology is properly in place. In the context of this Bill, authorised staff will be able to play a bigger role in determining start times, for example, and one hopes that that might enable the process to run as smoothly as possible and ensure that people’s concerns about when they can get to court can be properly considered.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
With the distance between courts being a factor not just for claimants and defendants but for witnesses, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that witnesses may sometimes choose not to go to a court if it is too far away, which can cause hearings to be cancelled?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman takes me further in the direction of the debate about the court closure plan, but we need to ensure that our resources are deployed as efficiently and effectively as possible. In that context, we have reduced the number of courts, but that money makes a contribution to our overall finances and can be reinvested as part of the court reform programme. We have to take every opportunity to make use of new technology to ensure that the experience of the justice system—the hon. Gentleman rightly highlights that witnesses are important in many cases—is as positive as possible.
I have touched on this already, but safeguards are important. Clearly, the delegation of certain judicial powers to court and tribunal staff needs to be done sensitively and sensibly, and with appropriate safeguards. Independent, judiciary-led procedure rule committees, which govern the rules within courts and tribunals, will determine which functions court staff may exercise in each jurisdiction and what qualifications and experience they will need. Those rules will then be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. All staff authorised to exercise judicial functions will ultimately be accountable to, and subject to, the direction of the Lord Chief Justice or the Senior President of Tribunals.
I am grateful for the valuable insight that Members of the other place brought to debating and scrutinising the measures in the Bill, particularly in relation to the exercise of judicial functions. Many of them drew on their own wealth of judicial experience and expertise in considering the practical issues of implementation.
Concerns were raised in the other place about the safeguards in delegating judicial functions to authorised staff. For example, concerns were raised that certain powers, particularly those that affect the rights and freedoms of citizens, should only ever be directly discharged by the judiciary. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton raised that point.
We have listened to those concerns, and we tabled amendments in the other place that will prevent specific judicial functions from being undertaken by authorised staff, including authorising a person’s committal to prison; in most cases, authorising a person’s arrest; granting certain injunctions; making orders for repossession of residential property, where the orders are contested; and making search orders.
We tabled amendments that will require the procedure rule committees, when making rules to allow authorised staff to exercise judicial functions, to consider whether the rules should include a right to judicial reconsideration of decisions made by such staff. The amendments will also require that, if a procedure rule committee decides against the creation of such a right, the committee will have to inform the Lord Chancellor of its decision and of the reasons for it. This will ensure much greater transparency and accountability.
The measures in the Bill strike the right balance between creating a framework for the delegation of judicial functions to authorised staff, with appropriate safeguards, and giving discretion to procedure rule committees and the senior judiciary to make the arrangements work in practice.
Alex Chalk
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principle of delegating functions to authorised staff is not, of itself, new? There has been a successful history, particularly in the magistrates courts, of delegating powers to justices’ clerks to carry out a number of functions, which even include such matters as issuing summonses or requesting pre-sentence reports. The principle is in place but, of course, the execution is vital.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is right, and his experience is a benefit to the House. He knows of what he speaks. This principle is not new, but it is one where we think we can go further, to the benefit of the courts and tribunals system and of the users of that system. He is absolutely right.
A balance needs to be struck on the safeguards, and we believe we have found the right balance. Indeed, the position was strongly supported in the other place by Lord Thomas, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Neuberger, a former President of the Supreme Court, both of whom have a wealth of experience in this area, having chaired procedure rule committees. The combination of Lord Thomas, Lord Neuberger and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, very distinguished lawyers all, is one that should reassure the House.
Lord Thomas warned on Second Reading against putting too much detail into the Bill:
“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedure are a very real fetter on the administration of justice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]
Similarly, Lord Neuberger warned in Committee of placing
“a potential straitjacket on the ability to appoint the appropriate people to make appropriate decisions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 882.]
Lord Marks also warned against setting too high a bar on the qualifications of court and tribunal staff exercising judicial functions:
“It seems…that the purpose of this part of the legislation is to increase efficiency and…to everybody’s advantage…the speed of decision-making… Having a legislative requirement that all delegated decisions must be taken by qualified lawyers with a minimum experience requirement runs the risk of frustrating this objective.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 414.]
I make those points in anticipation that this may be an issue that we debate further this afternoon, but I think the case is persuasive.
Kevin Hollinrake
Will the Bill make it easier to set up a new tribunal? I speak in the context of my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance, which has the idea of setting up a financial services tribunal. We are not seeing a level playing field in our courts between banks and small businesses, and we feel such a tribunal may be a solution. Will the Bill make it easier to establish such a tribunal, or will it not have any relevance in that area?
Mr Gauke
As it stands, and I do not want to encourage my hon. Friend to table amendments, the Bill will not necessarily do that. He has taken a great interest in this issue, and he has been speaking to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) will pursue the matter with his customary tenacity, and I do not wish to discourage him from doing so, unless he considers that the best way to manifest it is by tabling amendments to the Bill, in which case I would urge him to look elsewhere. I thank him for his intervention.
I draw the House’s attention to additional important safeguards in the Bill. It will provide a guarantee of the independence of staff and their decision making, by applying the statutory independence and immunities that currently apply to justices’ clerks to all authorised staff when exercising judicial functions. A member of staff will be able to exercise judicial functions only once authorised to do so: by the Lord Chief Justice or his nominee, for the courts; or by the Senior President of Tribunals or his delegate, for the tribunals. The Bill includes protections for authorised persons from legal proceedings, costs in legal proceedings and indemnification in respect of anything they do or do not do when exercising judicial functions in good faith.
The Bill also includes measures to enable greater flexibility in the deployment of judges across our family and county courts, the first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal. For example, it will permit recorders to sit in the upper tribunal, enable senior employment judges to sit in the first-tier tribunal and upper tribunal and enable presidents of the employment tribunals for England, Wales and Scotland to sit in the employment appeal tribunal. This will make best use of the experience and skills of serving judges, and it will give the senior judiciary more flexibility to respond to sudden changes in demand and to manage case backlogs in particular jurisdictions. It will also allow judges to gain experience of different types of cases, which will help with career progression. The Bill also contains provisions relating to the amendment of judicial titles, which will ensure consistency and will help to avoid confusion for court users.
The measures in the Bill are an important part of our wider £1 billion reform programme, which will see our courts and tribunals modernised for the 21st century and our digital age. New online services are already providing new routes to justice for many. For example, of all applications for divorce from unrepresented citizens, more than six out of 10 are now made online, after the new service was launched in May. That amounts to more than 20,000 people in just over six months. It has saved time, cost and effort for them and the system. Reforms in the criminal justice system—from making pleas online for low-level offences, to the piloting of a new digital system to allow the police, Crown Prosecution Service, courts, judiciary and defence to have a single shared view of case information online—are making it work better for everyone, too.
The Bill is an important part of our wider reforms to make our justice system work better for those who use it and those who work in it. It also makes an important first step in the legislation that will underpin our reforms. We will introduce further courts legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. With the appropriate safeguards in place, the Bill will allow our judiciary, courts and tribunals to operate more flexibly, responsibility and efficiently, and it will ultimately improve people’s experience of justice and put our courts and tribunals on a sound footing for the future. I commend the Bill to the House.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Before I open my speech, I wish to tell the House that today is Lancashire Day. On 27 November 1295, Lancashire sent its first Member of Parliament to attend King Edward I’s model Parliament. The day is well marked and celebrated in Lancashire.
We have been waiting for the arrival of court reform legislation ever since the Government promised in the Queen’s Speech last June a Bill to modernise the court system. One can imagine that expectations were high, but instead we were left disappointed when this wafer-thin Bill, which is both narrowly constrained and obscurely drafted, was finally published. Indeed, most of its provisions were included in the Prisons and Courts Bill that was shelved more than a year ago. That Bill devoted 38 clauses and 13 schedules to the courts and judges, whereas this Bill has just three such clauses followed by a single schedule. As Lord Judge once said of another Government move, it is
“a little too late and…quite a lot too little”.
Robert Neill
I intervene only in fairness to the distinguished legal journalist Mr Joshua Rozenberg, for that was his phrase that the noble Lord Judge was quoting.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.
Rather conveniently, the Government have left out measures that would provide a legislative framework for the increased use of online technology in the courts—their justification for closing so many courts and axing so many court staff. Indeed, we know that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is working at pace on the introduction of online justice services: the civil money claims service was made available to the public in April 2018 and the online divorce application procedure was rolled out nationally in May this year.
Although we would, of course, not seek to refute the fact that modern technology has undoubted benefits, we do have to ensure that it is used carefully and without generating more confusion or distress around the process. It should be about investing to improve our services; it should not be a smokescreen for cuts and closures. As such, it is only right that the effects of digitisation should be researched intensely and costed to ensure the best possible outcome. The Government have not yet confirmed that that has happened and still seem intent on this path, without considering potential concerns.
We are by no means against modernisation. We all want justice to be done in the most cost-effective manner and we all believe that the court system must meet the demands of the 21st century, but there is real concern that the Government are trying to bypass necessary legislative scrutiny in this policy area. We must see a thoroughly researched digitisation programme included in primary legislation, to ensure that written and online processes are undertaken appropriately.
The Bill is a missed opportunity. It should have included clear principles to guide the future of online court procedures and a modernisation programme that could have been fully debated in the House today. Instead, we are told that more legislation will eventually follow to encompass all that. This fragmentary approach—or what has been described by one legal commentator as a “legislative drip-feed”—is deeply unsatisfactory. In May 2018, the National Audit Office published a report that concluded that delays in the introduction of primary legislation have created a significant degree of uncertainty, and that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service “faces a daunting challenge” in delivering the technological and cultural change needed to modernise our courts and tribunals.
Since 2010, the Government have closed literally hundreds of courts and cut thousands of vital staff. Our research suggests that 80% of the courts sold so far have on average raised little more than the average UK house price. That causes concerns about long-term damage to access to justice for civil litigants and, indeed, victims of crime. It will also have an obvious and long-lasting effect on the principle of local justice. The cuts have led to an increase in the number of people forced to represent themselves, a problem further compounded by cuts to legal aid. When unrepresented members of the public turn up to seek justice as litigants in person, it increases costs and delays for everyone. As we have said in the past, it is the most vulnerable who will bear the heaviest costs—young mothers who are unable to find childcare, the elderly who find long journeys difficult, or the disabled. The court closures will prohibitively reduce access.
Will the Government pause their programme of court closures while new technologies and online courts are being tested and wait to see the full findings of their pilots to assess the impact of the changes to our courts system? Will the Lord Chancellor commit today to restarting the programme of court reforms only once the House has finally had an opportunity to fully scrutinise the plans in primary legislation? We have concerns about the Bill as it stands and will not be supporting it today, but we will table amendments in Committee.
As we heard from the Minister, clause 3 delegates judicial functions to authorised staff. This provision must be understood through the lens of a wider austerity agenda that seeks to make significant cuts. These cuts are being made through a process of court closures and through savings on judicial salaries. Other proposals include the relocation of many case-management functions, which, as we know, currently take place in court buildings, with the benefit of on-site judicial supervision.
Our concern is that decisions would move to new off-site service centres. There is an implication that, given that off-site nature, those service centres would be supervised by authorised staff, not judges. That is deeply problematic for us, not least because we would have scenarios in which authorised staff who were not subject to the training, experience, ethos and oaths that a member of the judiciary is, would be performing direct judicial functions while being employed directly by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.
The issue raises obvious questions about accountability and independence. It is also worth noting concerns that the people involved may be subject to administrative pressures that require the meeting of targets. Given the ideological cuts agenda driving this reform, it is vital that the Bill makes provision for safeguards to protect the standard of decision making by authorised staff, to ensure that the quality of the judicial process and the experience of those who use the court are maintained.
Although we accept that there is some scope for freeing up judges by allowing the most straightforward decisions to be delegated to authorised staff, the intended future limits to any such delegation do not appear to be in the Bill. Instead, they are supposed to be decided by the procedure rule committee. That means that if the Bill passes in its current form, there may be limited external scrutiny of how widely judicial functions are being carried out by people who are not in fact judges, but who work for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.
I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor is aware of the serious implications for the rule of law and the independence of our judicial decision making. In his opening speech, he touched on the fact that our judicial legal system is considered to be one of the best in the world and is used by many countries, many companies, and many litigants; it makes up about £28 billion-worth of trade. Will that be affected by this downgrading of our judiciary? We believe that such a shift would not meet the expectations held by members of the public about the level of experience and the independence of those making judicial decisions about their rights. Unless limits are placed on those who can be authorised and on what powers can be given to those authorised persons, the Bill could change the very nature of our justice system.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Lady is right to raise the importance of our judiciary, but I hope that we can reach a consensus on that. Does she not recognise that the Bill has the support of the judiciary? Senior retired judges have spoken in support of it in the other place, and it has been welcomed by the senior judiciary.
Yasmin Qureshi
I accept that the senior judiciary, some of whom are in the House of Lords, have said that the Bill is a good thing. However, practising lawyers, barristers, solicitors, the Bar Council and the Law Society have said that it is not right, and that the amendments that we will propose should be considered.
There is disagreement in the judicial community about the Bill. [Interruption.] I will just wait until the Lord Chancellor has dealt with his question. The Lord Chancellor and the practitioners here must be aware that, when judges are involved in delegated functions or non-court sitting judgments, they are making judgments on difficult issues and complex matters of law—for example, a case management hearing, or even something such as asking for an adjournment. We do not know, but, at the moment, the Bill suggests that such work could be done by delegated staff.
When someone asks for an adjournment, all kinds of complications could be involved; there could be issues relating to failure of disclosure and so on. According to the Bill as it stands, many issues would be given to a delegated person. That is one reason why we are asking for clarification about who those people will be, what powers they will be given, and, more specifically, what training they will be given. Although some senior members of the judiciary in the other place have said that the Bill is a positive development, the practitioners on the ground, at the moment, do not agree.
Robert Neill
I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, and I am not unsympathetic to her point, but, in fairness to the senior judiciary, is it not worth pointing out what was said by the two noble lords who spoke on this matter? Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, the recently retired President of the Supreme Court, counselled that it would be unsatisfactory to reduce the flexibility of these proposals, pointing out that there will be many decisions where requisite experience is required, but others where less experience is necessary. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the previous Lord Chief Justice, pointed out that the procedure rule committee had practitioners on it who acted independently. He said:
“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedures are a very real fetter on the administration of justice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]
Those are very serious counsels by two very distinguished recently retired judges.
Yasmin Qureshi
I have respect for the senior judiciary, of course, but Parliament should have control over what is being delegated. Taking away judges’ positions and powers is a matter that should be debated in this House. We do not think that it is a matter for the procedure rule committee. We would have a much better idea about what it should be looking at. I think that we will disagree on this issue.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about always listening to eminent legal practitioners in the Lords? I am certain that, quite recently, they have made some mistakes.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Those things do occur.
Let me go back to my earlier point. We believe that limits should be placed on those who can be authorised and on what powers can be given to those authorised persons. The Bill will change the very nature of our judicial system. We want a system that requires transparent and public scrutiny of the scope of future delegated powers by those in this House. That is important and I am surprised that hon. Members who are democratically elected wish to take away that element from the Bill.
We on the Labour Benches are seeking to push for a number of safeguards, the first of which places limits on the delegation of these judicial powers to non-judicial personnel. We intend to press for further oversight and accountability and will be laying down amendments to that effect. It should also be noted that the procedure rule committee has, for many years, undertaken some excellent work, but the delegation of judicial functions cannot be thought of as a simple procedural matter for a rule committee—rather, this is something worthy of secondary legislation in this House.
The reforms that the Government are seeking to introduce through the Bill are designed primarily to cut costs, but, as the Bill stands, there is a risk that the procedure rule committee will be placed in the difficult position of balancing pressures to save costs against maintaining fundamental rights. Amending the Bill so that the procedure rule committee must at least consider the impact on rights would provide important protections both for the rights of the citizen and for the integrity of the committee. We ask the Government to consider that any decision made by someone who has been delegated judicial functions should be open to a full reconsideration or review by a judge. That would guarantee that purely procedural matters could be dealt with more efficiently; if any decisions were deemed contentious, however, they could be reviewed by an experienced and appropriately qualified judge.
We also note that the Government’s late amendment in the other place obliged the procedure rule committee to consider making rules to determine which of the functions performed by authorised staff could be subject to a party’s right of reconsideration by a judge. However, that does not satisfy our concerns. Indeed, it is simply replicating the fundamental problem of the Bill. By placing the obligation on the rule committee, it delegates a legislative duty to the same unaccountable body. Consequently, we will be pushing ahead with our amendment, supported by the Law Society and the Bar Council, that proposes a statutory right to judicial reconsideration for any party to a decision by an authorised person. We will also seek to ensure that, in drawing up the rules on reconsideration, the rule committee must consider which functions and decisions will be clearly capable of having a material impact on the substantive rights of the parties. I reiterate that we respectfully disagree with the noble and learned Lords in the other place.
In the Ministry of Justice’s explanatory notes on delegation to staff, it is stated that decisions are unlikely to involve contested matters, yet this is not in the Bill. I remind the Lord Chancellor that case management decisions are essential judicial functions that should not necessarily be delegated. We need to ensure that the decisions that impact on the fairness of the process remain within the remit of the judges.
We also have concerns about the lack of minimum qualification for the authorised staff, particularly where staff are not legally qualified or sufficiently experienced to undertake such functions effectively. The Law Society has suggested that the requirements for qualification, training and experience should be set at three years’ post-qualification, as a solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive for all types of functions, and that that approach should be consistent across all courts and tribunals. I know that the Lord Chancellor has disagreed with this, but I ask him again to agree with the Law Society’s recommendation that a minimum requirement of three years’ post-qualification as a solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive is appropriate for court staff who are to be delegated judicial functions. Will he also provide assurances that provisions in the Bill that allow the delegation of judicial functions will only be considered where staff have appropriate legal qualifications?
A further omission from the Bill—this point has been made by Women’s Aid—is the provision prohibiting the cross-examination of victims of domestic violence that we all looked forward to in last year’s aborted Bill. The stark evidence from groups such as Women’s Aid is that this gap in the law is being used as a further means of control and abuse. We are concerned that such provisions are not now in the Bill. Will the Lord Chancellor tell us when the Government will bring this particular provision to Parliament so that we can deal with it and have a law in our statute book to bar people from cross-examining victims of domestic violence?
Jess Phillips
Those of us who have campaigned were expecting to see in the Bill some of the things that have been promised, such as the banning of cross-examination. Senior members of the judiciary have themselves called for that measure, but find that current legislation ties their hands. Given that it is not in this Bill, I am certain that Ministers will tell us that it will be in the domestic abuse Bill that will be brought forward. Why will women have to suffer this experience between now and whenever that legislation comes forward? Why is the provision not in this Bill?
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on raising these issues. She is absolutely right. Why is the provision not in this Bill? It was in last year’s Bill, which was aborted because of the general election. It should not be that difficult to put it into a legislative framework.
Let me give an example of something that happened a few months ago in the family courts. Two spouses had an issue about the custody of their child. The female plaintiff had made allegations of domestic violence and sexual abuse against her husband, and it was obvious that the male respondent wanted to cross-examine her. However, the judge had to step in to ask the question on behalf of the male respondent. The case then went to the High Court, where the judge said that it was really not appropriate for members of the judiciary to have to intervene in such cases. The provision should already be on the statute book. We have talked about it for so long and it is not that difficult; it should be on the statute book as soon as possible.
To truly understand the impact of the Bill, we must look at it in the context of the Government’s wider austerity agenda. As it stands, the Bill has the potential to have a profound impact on our justice system. The double delegation of powers that the Government are intent on introducing is a slippery slope that, without proper controls, puts rights at risk. Without further careful scrutiny and additional safeguards, the Bill has the potential to erode long-established legal rights.
The amendments that Labour tabled in the other House were reasonable, sensible and practical, and we really cannot see why the Government cannot adopt and accept them. The Bill has limitations. The Government should listen to us and others who want to improve it, and accept our amendments, which have the support of the Law Society and the Bar Council, so that we protect our judicial system.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor.
In this debate, there is a danger of allowing the ideal to become the enemy of the good and the deliverable. I rather share the regret of the shadow Minister that this is not a larger Bill. I was a great supporter of the Prisons and Courts Bill that was lost prior to the 2017 election, as were all Members on the Treasury Bench today. There were clauses in the Prisons and Courts Bill that I hope will be brought back soon, and the prevention of cross-examination of victims in domestic abuse cases is certainly one of them. It is important not only that that issue be resolved, but that the court-appointed advocates who undertake that work be properly remunerated, and I say that in the context of the ongoing review of legal aid. It will be necessary for those advocates to prepare the cross-examination with particular care, because such cases always require a particular degree of sensitivity.
Removing the ability of the complainant in person to cross-examine is right and proper, but proper means—proportionate with the equality of arms—must be put in place and properly funded to enable the trial to be conducted fairly. I understand the Lord Chancellor’s point that it may not be appropriate to put that in this Bill, but that is not a reason not to bring forward the fully thought through and worked out provisions at the earliest possible opportunity. That is a digression from this worthwhile Bill, which does a number of valuable things, some of which I will mention.
Reference has been made to the debates in the Lords. The Lord Chancellor was right to say that proceedings in the Lords were conducted in a particularly constructive and co-operative spirit. Maybe that was because of the very high percentage of lawyers participating in the debates in the other place. It was a civilised and careful consideration of the Bill, in which I think there was—with respect to the Opposition Front Bench—rather less attempt to politicise some of these provisions than we have heard this afternoon. Many of the measures in the Bill are important and technical reforms that require a statutory basis, and should be welcomed.
I noticed the discussion of changes to judicial titles during the debates in the other place. If I have a slight regret about this Bill, it is one that I share with the noble Lord Mackay of Clashfern about the abolition of the title of justices’ clerk. I can understand why that is proposed, but having practised in the criminal courts for 30-odd years, I have a certain affection for the title, as did Lord Mackay. But that change goes with this Bill, so maybe it is a price that has to be paid for modernity. Perhaps I am being uncharacteristically reactionary in regretting the disappearance of the title of stipendiary magistrate as well. I always thought that “Mr St John Harmsworth, stipendiary magistrate at Marlborough Street” had a greater ring to it than “Mr St John Harmsworth, district judge (magistrates courts)” might ever have done, but I suppose the change did give a certain degree of standardisation.
We have been talking about appropriate levels of qualification. There was a time when justices’ clerks did not have to be legally qualified. I do not say that was a good thing. I remember appearing quite often, as a very young barrister, at Billericay magistrates court in Essex in front of the last non-legally qualified justices’ clerk in the country. He had some sort of grandfathered rights that went back to a time when one could do 10 years as a justices’ clerk and that was regarded as giving one the qualification for appointment. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) is much shocked by these things. We had to be terribly robust in those days. I remember that I managed to persuade that justices’ clerk to dismiss a case at half time on the basis that a rice flail was not an offensive weapon per se, because it might have had a legitimate use for flailing rice. Whether that was going to happen on Basildon high street, I am not sure.
We have moved on, and the justices’ clerks are much more professional now, and much more fully integrated, so despite my regret about the loss of the title, the new one does reflect more adequately the role that they now have as legal advisers to a very important part of our system—the lay judiciary. In fact, the Justice Committee heard evidence from representatives of the Magistrates Association today regarding the updating of our previous report on the magistracy. They can play a critical role in this. I think that they broadly welcome the attempts at modernisation of practice and procedure that this Bill will assist.
Alex Chalk
Like the Chairman of the Justice Committee, I welcome these measures to modernise the process. However, this should not be allowed to distract from what remains a fundamental problem, which is that there are not enough people coming into the judiciary. We need to ensure that they are properly incentivised to do so and rewarded for doing so, because the backlog of cases in the Court of Appeal and elsewhere will not be resolved by these measures alone. Does he agree?
Robert Neill
I totally agree. These are useful, practical measures on their own, but they are by no means a solution to the problem. In fact, they are but a very small part of the solution.
I am a bit concerned by some of the Law Society’s suggestions in briefings that some of the broader programme of courts reform is posited on making savings in judicial posts and appointments of about £37.5 million. I hope that the Lord Chancellor—or the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), when she responds to the debate—will be able to set our minds at rest on that. We can make savings by using staff qualified at the appropriate level in what one might term purely interlocutory or procedural matters, but all the decisions on issues of substance in any case—whatever the sum involved or whatever the nature of the charge, in a criminal case—have impacts on the individuals concerned, and they should, in my judgment, be taken only by properly qualified lawyers in an open court process. That is important.
We cannot allow the valuable nature of this Bill to take away from the fact that we need an injection of resource into the criminal justice system. We are seeing a shortfall in appointments to the High Court bench on a regular basis. A number of hon. Members have talked about the integrity of our justice system and the importance of its legal standing, and the quality of the judiciary is key to that. We also see difficulties in making sufficient appointments—full time, at any rate—to the circuit bench. It is easier with recorders, I grant, because they are able to sit part time, but there is a real issue there.
There is also a real issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham knows, about morale. I think that the Lord Chancellor and the Under-Secretary of State understand that and take it on board. I do not expect them to be able to wave a magic wand and solve everything overnight, but it is important to stress these things. Technical changes are useful as far as they go, but they cannot underpin what is essentially a people-based system.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the excellent work that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee does on these and many other issues. I agree that there were perhaps things in the Prisons and Courts Bill that have not found their way into this Bill. He may agree that we should, none the less, take the opportunity of this Bill to try to sort out the problem of the previous sexual history of victims in rape trials being dragged through the court and used by the defence in an irrelevant way to undermine the complainant’s evidence, sometimes when applications are not even made to introduce this material. Does he agree that this Bill is an opportunity to deal with that problem? We know that this is happening, and it undermines getting rape convictions.
Robert Neill
I very much respect the point that the right hon. and learned Lady is making, but I must say to her frankly that I am not convinced that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with that issue, although it is a real one, simply because the Bill is very tightly drawn in scope and relates to function. What she wishes to do—I understand why she may wish to do it—would have significant impacts on the operation of the law of evidence, which is a consideration that deserves to be looked at on its own. We probably have a shared view as to what we might want to achieve, but I am not sure that this Bill would be the right one to achieve it.
We do need to look very carefully at the whole approach to the way that previous sexual conduct is dealt with in rape and other sexual offence cases, but we also have to bear in mind—I say this as somebody who prosecuted and defended in these cases—that we should not assume that these issues will never be relevant to the key issue in the case. A balance has to be struck, and very often that is a decision that can only be taken by the trial judge in the light of the submissions made by the parties. I would not want us to restrict the ability of the trial judge to make that decision, because they are best placed to do that. However, the right hon. and learned Lady’s point about failure to follow the procedures and make proper application in advance, and enforcement of those procedures by the judiciary, is an important one that we certainly ought to take forward.
Ms Harman
Can I go back to plan B, then? Even if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill is not the right place to address such a considerable evidential problem—and there is controversy around this—would he not, at the very least, like to see tucked in under clause 3, “Functions of staff”, an obligation on staff to record, when an application under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is made, what evidence was brought forward and what the result of the application was? There is an absence of evidence about what the courts are actually doing. That enables them to say that there is not a problem, when evidence such as that brought forward by Vera Baird, the police and crime commissioner for Northumbria, says that there is a problem. Does he agree that this Bill could at least get us recording that very important information?
Robert Neill
That is a very interesting and constructive point, because we do want to have an evidence base. Again, the only caution I have is this: is it appropriate to do that through a form of statute, or is it better done through placing that requirement in the criminal procedure rules? I am going to talk about the procedure rules in a moment. Either way, there should be a means of capturing that information, and I am very sympathetic to doing so. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Lady and I could talk with others about the best way forward on achieving that, because it should certainly be possible, with modern court technology.
John Howell
May I take my hon. Friend back to where he left off? Does he agree that the threat to the use of English law around the globe comes about from the efficiency or otherwise of the judges, and that the more that judges are unable to be efficient in giving a judgment, the more there is a threat to the use of English law? Does he agree that this Bill goes a long way towards trying to sort that out?
Robert Neill
Yes, I do. That is very important, and that is why it is not surprising that experienced former judges have expressed a view on this. We have referred to the former President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, and the immediate past Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I note also the observations of Lord Thomas’s predecessor, the noble Lord Judge. They all supported the thrust of this Bill in enabling more flexible deployment of judges within tribunals and the assignment of procedural matters to non-judicial court staff. They also warned about not unduly fettering the ability of the court procedure rule committees, which have on them practitioner representatives who are able to set matters in the light of their practical experience. That is absolutely right, and it in no way contradicts the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham about the need to have the requisite number of top-class members of the judiciary. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) that this is a sensible and proportionate Bill.
I want to touch on a couple of other points that relate to the issues legitimately raised by both the Law Society and the Bar Council. It is possible to meet their concerns in a proportionate way. I think it is fair to say that the Bar Council and the Law Society’s main issue, in terms of the scope of the Bill, has been the relationship to authorised staff. They make a fair point about the underlying issue of the courts modernisation programme, which I will touch on later. There was an acceptance in the other place that some types of procedure and hearing do not require a legally qualified person to deal with them.
However, we have to ensure that when the procedure committee draws up the rules around this—I welcomed the Government’s amendment, which gives greater clarity about how that will operate and makes it easier to achieve—it is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham said, placed in the invidious situation of trading off access to rights against costs. I have sympathy, therefore, for what underpinned the concern raised by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), though I do not advocate the same solution. That balance cannot be allowed to be swayed unduly in terms of the transactional or the financial.
The right of reconsideration is worthy of consideration, and I hope the Government will look seriously at it. It is a question of the appropriate level at which to pitch that. Some of the matters that it is proposed be delegated are almost entirely procedural in nature. We should distinguish between delegating to a court official a procedural matter, such as granting an extension in time, which many of us probably think is not the sort of thing where the fundamental rights of a party are so affected that it requires reconsideration, and something that goes to the issue of the case, such as a summary judgment. The way forward is to give the rules committees the ability to reflect those distinctions, rather than to try to spell things out too much in statute.
It has been suggested that there should be a form of benchmark against which the rules and procedures operations are carried out. That may be worthy of consideration by Ministers, and it may be discussed in Committee. I would not want to tie people’s hands, but we could have some form of benchmark against which that is done, without falling into the trap that Lord Thomas, Lord Judge and Lord Neuberger counselled against, of overly restricting, over-legislating and tying the hands of the judges.
I take issue with the Opposition on this point. It is not right or desirable for politicians—who, by their nature in our system, are partisan animals—to seek to constrain too much the operation of the rules or procedure of the desirably and deliberately independent courts. We have to be careful about how we achieve a balance. Our job is to set the policy and legislative framework within which the courts operate, but if we get too far into the detail, we run the risk of trespassing on judicial independence, and also on efficiency.
There are good aspects to the Bill that I hope the House will take forward. I intervened on the hon. Member for Bolton South East to point out that it was Mr Joshua Rozenberg, the well-known journalist, who coined the phrase
“it is a little too late and quite a lot too little.”
In fact, to be wholly accurate, it was Lord Marks, a Liberal Democrat shadow Minister, who quoted it in the other place. It is a very good phrase, but it is harsh on the Bill. The Bill does good work within the scope that it seeks, but that does not mean we should not support the Lord Chancellor and his Ministers when they seek, as I am sure they will, to find the appropriate legislative time to bring forward measures on a number of other aspects of the former Prisons and Courts Bill, which was lost in the Dissolution.
The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I have discussed some matters of criminal and family law in domestic violence cases that it is important for us to tie up. I stress strongly that much of these reform proposals stem from the excellent reports of Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Leveson. Their reports were seminal in suggesting a modernising way forward, but taking that way forward requires the underpinning of statute. I urge the Lord Chancellor, who has been very patient in listening to us all, to make it a priority to persuade the business managers to find time for the legislative vehicle that will enable the modernisation of the court procedure rules on all civil matters to be brought forward. The Leveson proposals could have statutory underpinning in the same Bill. There is a real sense of uncertainty, referred to by the Law Society and the Bar Council, about the statutory underpinning for this ambitious courts programme. That was also picked up by the National Audit Office in its inquiry.
I welcome the Bill, and I support it as a valuable and worthwhile step forward, but—I think the Lord Chancellor would be the first to accept this—it is only one part of the programme that we need to deliver. We ought to get the Bill through the House as swiftly as possible and then move on to the next step. I note that Second Reading in the Lords lasted just under two hours, which shows that we can be both erudite and remarkably brief, which is perhaps an improvement on some debates we have here.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, who gave us an awful lot to think about. I agree with him that there is a great deal in the Bill that is good and that I would not wish to speak against, but I want to draw attention to a couple of its aspects about which I have concerns. As a non-lawyer, I am happy to be corrected if I have got something wrong and to be reassured by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), when she makes her concluding remarks. I wish to raise a couple of areas of concern, particularly in relation to the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in the legal process, but also about the context in which these proposals are being made.
There is a sign on a wall near my constituency office in Bristol that says:
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
I am sure all Members will know that those are the words of Dr Martin Luther King, and they are as relevant now as they were when he first wrote them in his letter from Birmingham jail in 1963. I quote them because a reduction in justice for any of us is a reduction in justice for all of us. When a court closes, as is happening in many of our towns and cities, making it harder for witnesses to travel to give evidence and for members of the public to hear court proceedings; when someone gets inadequate advice from someone supposedly giving them legal advice; or when the powers of the court to act fairly and impartially are compromised anywhere in our system, it is a potential threat to justice for all of us. I know that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister would not wish to do that, so I pose my questions to ask whether we are sure we are doing everything we can to maintain the spirit of that quote.
We may be the victim of a crime or the witness to a crime. We may be accused of a crime, or we may know someone who is wrongly accused. We may have a constituent who needs our help. For all those things, we need our courts to work properly. I am truly concerned about the Bill. While it has good points, there are a couple of places where there are questions to ask.
First, I am concerned that these changes are being pushed through Parliament at a time when Members are understandably focused on other matters and when, as far as I know—the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst may correct me if I am wrong—there has not been prelegislative scrutiny. I would like to know when there will be some form of legislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee. There are provisions in the Bill that provide for regulations to be made through statutory instruments. That has been attended to in the other place, but those instruments provide for very limited scrutiny. Again, this is in a context where we will be overwhelmed by Brexit-related statutory instruments in the coming months and years.
Then there is the background of cuts to legal aid. I recognise that that is outwith the scope of the Bill, but it has an impact on the effect of the Bill. The wider context is that the justice system is under great strain. If the Lord Chancellor or the Minister has read the book “The Secret Barrister”, they will know the context I am referring to. I am also alluding particularly to refugees and asylum seekers, because I am concerned that they may be the people for whom the supposedly straightforward administrative advice that the Lord Chancellor mentioned may turn out to be more complicated and have a more far-reaching impact.
I need more reassurance from the Minister that there will not be an impact on immigration claims and appeals cases, which are sometimes already affected by perhaps less than great legal advice or legal aid cuts, and that the system will not be put under further pressure. That would mean that people who genuinely need our help, and who are entitled to sanctuary, could be failed and may be returned to places where they would face further danger. I would like some reassurance or clarification on that from the Minister, or perhaps an undertaking to look at it during the Bill’s further stages.
On legal qualifications, I refer hon. Members and the Minister to the comments of the noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss in the debate on the Bill in the other place. She said:
“My Lords, as a former judge of the family court, I wonder in what circumstances such judges—district judges, circuit judges or even possibly High Court judges—might need the advice of those who were not themselves qualified lawyers. I find that difficult. I see no difficulty with justices of the peace—that is perfectly obvious—but at the moment I cannot see how any family court judge, at any level, should be advised on legal issues by someone who is not legally qualified.”
She continued:
“I would be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining what he sees this applying to, and in what circumstances.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 416.]
It would be helpful if the Minister could give this Opposition Member, as well as others who may be more knowledgeable than me and certainly the non-lawyers in this place, an idea of the answer to the questions that the noble and learned Baroness asked.
When our Front Bencher in the other place withdrew the Labour amendment on qualifications, she did so reluctantly. I note that she said she was withdrawing it with “a somewhat heavy heart”. I am therefore particularly concerned that the concerns she raised in the other place may not yet have been dealt with adequately. I would like some reassurance from the Minister on that.
As I have said, I am concerned, drawing on my casework as an MP, about the potential impact on appeals in immigration and asylum cases, which may be put under strain if there is any question of administrative information being given by people who are not legally qualified. Those affected are multiply vulnerable: they are usually traumatised, they may have little English, and with the best will in the world, they may not be capable of understanding the legal advice or administrative information that they are given. This may seem a tiny, nit-picking and technical point—and perhaps I have got it wrong—but I really think it is worth checking that we have not unwittingly put asylum seekers and refugees in a position where administrative advice may have a more far-reaching consequence than I am sure the Lord Chancellor intends.
On cost cutting, in Bristol we have a well-appointed court in the centre of the city, but I understand from colleagues who represent towns and smaller cities that they have experienced court and tribunal closures, resulting in increased journey times for victims and witnesses and reduced access to visible justice. The Law Society and others have already expressed great concerns about that, and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned the National Audit Office in that context.
Does the Minister recognise the concerns of those who see this Bill in the round—in the context of the wider cuts to court staff and court closures—about it being a move towards justice being delivered at a reduced rate? As I said, there are good things in the Bill. What is at issue is not that, but its impact and how it fits into the wider context.
The Bill does not in my view satisfactorily address the context of the cost cutting programme in courts, which is undermining access to justice and is being pushed through without proper scrutiny. I urge the Minister, if she has not already done so, to add “The Secret Barrister” to her Christmas reading list. I have not finished it, truth be told, but I will undertake to finish it if she will, because that may be useful for all of us. I am concerned that the Bill could be an attempt, in places, to cut corners and weaken safeguards, and I am concerned about delegating powers to possibly underqualified court staff without adequate training. I urge the Minister to consider Opposition Front-Bench amendments to that effect.
I urge the Government and the Minister to remember what I said at the start. I repeat those words:
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
I would like the Minister’s reassurance that she is truly convinced that this Bill does not, even in the smallest way, represent any threat to justice.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), not least because, like her, I am not a lawyer. I think the more non-lawyers who speak in this debate, the better it will be, because we bring common sense to such a debate, which I am afraid from time to time legally qualified Members do not.
I was, however, completely entranced by the description of justices’ clerks given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). I thought that my opportunity had now come, because these were non-legally qualified people who had a role to play, and I thought, “This is an opportunity for me when I finish here”. Sadly, however, even that has been taken away from me.
If I may, I will just pick up on one of the things that the hon. Member for Bristol West mentioned when she talked about other things distracting us from our examination of this area. I think this is just the sort of Bill that we need to concentrate on. I do not think we should be distracted by other things, because the Bill is crucial to the management of justice and of our courts.
Thangam Debbonaire
I just wish to clarify my point about Members being distracted. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is exactly the sort of Bill we should be focusing on, but my concern is that Members are distracted by the wider constitutional impact of the word beginning with B, which I will not mention.
John Howell
I am sure some Members are distracted by that, but I am incredibly pleased that neither she nor I are, and that we are going to concentrate on the Bill in a very big way.
I mentioned in an intervention on the Lord Chancellor that I was actually the first Member of Parliament to go on the Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship in law. It was a particularly enlightening experience. I cannot remember the number of days that I was allocated, but I doubled the number of days I spent on it, because I spent most of the time sitting alongside judges, on the bench, listening to what they did. The number of different courts I saw was tremendous—I remember starting in the commercial courts, which I will come back to in a little while. They represented such a technological advance on all the other courts I sat in on, and that was a really good thing to see.
To go back to a point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the first thing that came out of that experience of sitting alongside judges was an absolute admiration for their integrity and for what they did and how they did it. The second thing was an understanding of how overworked they are. As non-lawyers, we perhaps tend to think of judges just turning up, sitting and listening to the case, and giving judgment, but the amount of preparation that goes into hearings is phenomenal. That was a good thing to see and experience, and it applied whether it was the bankruptcy court or the Court of Appeal, in which I sat on two occasions.
The point I made to my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor earlier was about the speed of justice. I am not a great advocate of speed in itself, but I think there is a threat to English law: not Brexit, but the ability of our courts to dispense justice on a timely basis. When I sat in with judges, I saw that they were often so preoccupied with the minor administrative elements of their role they did not have time to dispense justice in what I would consider a timely manner. That was the case whether I was sitting in a higher court or, in particular, in a tribunal—I will come on to tribunals in a moment. Efficiency in making judgments and delivering English justice is one of the hallmarks of the justice system and one that we lose at our peril. If that point alone is made, it is made well.
One issue I would like to raise, which may at first not seem immediately applicable to the Bill, is the age of judges. I believe it does apply to the Bill, because consideration is being given to other people taking on judicial functions. The point about age has also been raised in relation to the magistracy, and it also applies to lords justices and others. When the Lord Chief Justice appeared before the Justice Committee last week, we asked him about the age of justices and he explained that there were mechanisms by which they could be extended beyond the age of 70 in certain capacities. However, that is an artificial cut-off—if we were stopped from being MPs at 70, I think there would be shouts of horror. Some of us—I am nowhere near that age now—would consider that we were being cut off in the prime of our life. The same is the case with judges. They have acquired a tremendous amount of experience, principally as barristers. They have had a lot of judicial experience, and they are just coming to the point where they can use that experience in the best possible way. I therefore think it is necessary to look at extending the age at which judges retire to beyond 70. To be able to do that, we must look at the courts in a holistic way.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The coalition Government, as I am sure he will know, increased the age at which members of the public could sit as jurors to 75. It seems quite bizarre that a lay person who is fit, healthy and willing to serve can sit as a juror up to the age of 75, but people of that age cannot sit as a judge of the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court—unlike in the United States, where they can go on for a considerable time.
John Howell
I am not sure I would like to follow the experience of the United States in this matter, but my hon. Friend makes an absolutely first-class point. There needs to be a consistent approach to the age at which we can use people or force them to retire.
There is a lot to be said for the system in the Bill that would enable people to undertake some activities undertaken by judges. As an aside, I said that I am a non-lawyer, but I am currently seeking to extend my ability to undertake arbitration—I hope that that does not cut across or invalidate what I am saying. Such an ability is an important element of the mix that needs to be taken into account when we are looking at the judicial system as a whole.
When I was involved in sitting with judges for the fellowship, I was very much aware of the difference between courts in digitalisation and technology. In the commercial court, the system was utterly brilliant. I sat with a judge who was listening to an English law case in Portuguese. The transcript of the English translation appeared almost instantaneously on his laptop on his desk in front of him. The use of technology to get information out was absolutely fantastic. As I said to the Lord Chancellor, however, employment tribunals might as well have still been using the quill pen, they were so antiquated—not the judgments being made, but how the courts were organised and delivered justice. If we want access to justice, it is absolutely essential that the process of digitalisation in courts is seen through to the end. It materially influences access to justice.
When I sat in the Court of Appeal, prisoners appealed their sentences via video link. It was clearly not a good idea to bring the prisoners into court, so video links were used all the time to great effect, enabling judgments to be made. There were some discrepancies. For example, it took some time to get the focus right for some prisoners. I understand that that was due to the camera equipment, rather than the features of the prisoners.
When I started my work as chairman of the all-party group on alternative dispute resolution, I had the opportunity to speak to Lord Briggs about his proposals for the justice system as a whole. The Bill moves us closer towards what Lord Briggs was after, but it does not take us all the way to it. For example, the digitisation of divorce is welcome, but his proposal for online courts is very valuable. I know that that is controversial among lawyers, but it is important to enabling both the delivery of justice and access to justice. I would like that process to be extended beyond the scope of the Bill, so that we can receive and transmit electronic evidence in the handling of individual court cases. Anything that can move the legal profession into the 21st century is to be welcomed.
If I may, I would like to give a plug to the Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship. Having been the first to go on it, I recommend that hon. Members absolutely do so. The experience of sitting alongside judges is absolutely first class. My first appearance in court—if I can put it that way—was in a commercial court. I went to the court with the judge. We were just about to go through the door and I said, “I shall just go and sit at the back of the court.” He said, “What do you mean? You’re sitting up next to me in the court.” It was a great shock to me—
John Howell
It was a great shock to the barristers, particularly when I sat in the planning court and the barrister was well known to me. We played a little trick on him by coming in through different doors so that he was unaware of who we were.
The point of all that is that it is a very valuable training scheme. The more that people can go on it, the more there will be an understanding of the issues raised in the Bill and of the need to bring the courts into the 21st century.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), and I am very pleased to speak on Second Reading of the Bill, which is part of a wider programme of reforms to our judicial system. In 2016, there was a joint statement about the reform programme from the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals saying that the reforms would combine
“our respected traditions with the enabling power of technology. The vision is to modernise and upgrade our justice system so that it works even better for everyone, from judges and legal professionals, to witnesses, litigants and the vulnerable victims of crime. When they have to engage with the system, we want everyone to have available to them the finest justice system in the world.”
That is absolutely right. That is what we want from these reforms; we want a system that works for everybody and is more accessible to everybody.
I also want to bring the attention of the House to what Susan Acland-Hood, the chief executive of the Courts and Tribunals Service said about this:
“Our ambitious programme of court reform aims to bring new technology and modern ways of working to what is—and will remain—the best justice system in the world.”
That is absolutely right. We want to make our fantastic and world-renowned justice system the best in the world. She also says:
“We know our systems and processes haven’t always kept pace with the rapid technological developments…around us.”
That is the key point that is so important for our courts, our tribunal services and our justice system. They very much need to remain relevant, in time and in touch with technological change and it is important that we have that as we move forward.
The Bill is about delivering on those significant reforms to the Courts and Tribunals Service. It includes proposals to develop high-quality digital services, which are so important as we move towards a more digitised age. People are now so used to using digital technologies.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I hope that the introduction of new technology will mean speeding up casework, because for far too long there has been a large gap before something comes to court. I do not think that that is fair in terms of justice or for the individual concerned. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me?
Jack Brereton
I absolutely agree. Like many Members, I have had a number of constituents come to me to raise concerns about the timeliness of hearings, going to court and how long it takes to get to court. That is so important. I am pleased that it is one of the key things that will, I hope, be addressed by the Bill, which will speed up that process so that we see a much more efficient system of getting into court and getting through the court process.
Unfortunately, at the moment, much of the court system is clunky and bureaucratic. Many of the processes used are over-complex and labour intensive. Another word we might use is counterintuitive, as some of the processes are not entirely logical. We need to reform the process to make it more effective and more efficient, and to deliver more for my constituents, those of the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and constituents across the country. We need to ensure that we have a system that remains relevant.
Other things will particularly be improved through digitisation. The public can now apply for non-contested divorces, respond to a jury summons, track social security appeals and issue a response to civil money claims online. The move towards more of these services being offered online is really important, and it is positive to see encouraging and positive feedback from the public about the new services that have been introduced and the work that has been done to encourage more digitisation.
The Bill will continue to build on the reforms, making better use of the skills and experiences of the cohort of judges in our criminal and judicial system. It is important that judges’ time is used to the most advantage and the greatest effect and that we direct judges to the most serious cases, where their expertise can be used to best advantage. We should be ensuring that they are freed from some of the more mundane and routine tasks that can be done by lower-level staff who will be appropriately qualified and experienced to deal with such matters. Senior judges should not be dealing with such issues.
The provisions in the Bill will move forward the process of building efficiency and effectiveness and speed up the turnover of cases, which, as I have already said, is extremely welcome to constituents up and down the country, particularly my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South. On a number of occasions, I have had to write to the chief executive of the Courts and Tribunals Service and Ministers in the Department about speeding up some of these cases and trying to get some of them to court in a timely way. I know that Members across the House have issues with that.
The Bill is very much about how we can improve the judicial system not just for the people who use it but for the people working in it, making it a much more effective system for judges and all the other very qualified staff who work in it. I am particularly pleased to see that Stoke-on-Trent and Birmingham have been announced as the first two new locations for the Courts and Tribunals Service centres. It is fantastic to see that my own area will benefit from greatly improved services, with faster services for our constituents and better guidance to help the public and professionals understand and use the court process much more effectively. That is very important; the court process needs to be accessible to all our constituents. It should not just be for those who are well informed on these matters.
I am pleased that Stoke-on-Trent will be one of the first two locations. The Courts and Tribunals Service centres have completed the process of organisational design and job design and are commencing the internal selection process for staff to take up roles in the two projects. I want to go into a bit more detail about what that will entail. It will reshape how the Courts and Tribunals Service works, ensuring that it is a much more effective organisation in providing services that our constituents need. Our courts and tribunals will be much more focused on supporting trials and hearings, and it is so important that they do that. The roles of clerks will change. They will be able to support judges and users of courts in more ways, such as by using technology to support their core role. The courts and tribunals will also have listing officers where they do now and staff to support judges, including with more delegated powers, where that is agreed by the judiciary.
This is about making our judicial system and the Courts and Tribunals Service much easier, more accessible and more transparent, and reducing many of the complexities that have unfortunately existed in the judicial system. It is also about cutting down on some bureaucratic and administrative processes, and moving to a much more efficient service, ensuring that we have a service that is providing a first port of call for members of the public who want information on their cases. It is so important for constituents to be able to access information about cases and services as easily as possible.
The first two Courts and Tribunals Service centres, which will begin by supporting our first reformed services—divorce, probate, the single justice service, and social security and child support—will open in Stoke-on-Trent and Birmingham in January 2019. I very much look forward to that and hope that this will move forward easily now. Reforms will involve moving the location of some services in the future. The report talks about the importance of buildings and about the Courts and Tribunals Service learning lessons where we are selling off property or where property is changing, so that we take on board the views of the communities involved. Many of these buildings are important assets to their communities. Many of them are historic buildings in the heart of their communities, and I want to make Members aware of what has been experienced in Stoke-on-Trent.
The magistrates court in Fenton in my constituency was one of 93 courts in England and Wales that were identified for closure and it subsequently did close, in 2012, as part of measures to save about £41 million. As Members can imagine, that provoked a significant outcry in the community. The magistrates court was based in the former town hall in that community, which is a fantastic Victorian building. I am pleased that campaigners have been able to save the building for community use. There are significant lessons to be learned on how we dispose of these buildings and how we can bring them into effective community use. That building, which was used for many, many years as the magistrates court, is now a real hub for the community, providing spaces for local businesses and community groups, a café and an art gallery. These fantastic facilities have been brought back into use for the community because things have been done in the right way. The Department has to be congratulated, following the significant pressure that was put on it by the community, on the fact that that site is now back with the community.
Justin, a descendant of William Meath Baker, the person who built Fenton town hall, bought the town hall and is gradually restoring that building and bringing it back into use for the community. Once fully completed and restored, that building, which was built in 1888, will be a fantastic part of the community, and I hope it will continue to be used for many decades to come by the community. As we move forward with these reforms—with the digitisation and the moving of courts to different locations—it is important to take account of the places we have had previously and the changes that were made. It would be great to see former courts up and down the land that are no longer needed, because of the efficiencies that have been made, being used for community value and in productive ways for our communities.
I wish to finish by giving a few statistics about what this process will mean for the Courts and Tribunals Service. More than £1 billion will be invested in transforming the system, which will include 21st-century technology, online services and digital working, while making sure that our justice system remains the most accessible justice system possible for constituents such as mine. There is a real opportunity to make the system much more accessible to our constituents. The measures in the Bill will enable direct financial benefits of around £6 million per annum and enable wider court reforms, which will save around £200 million per annum once fully implemented. Over 65,000 people have used the pilots of new courts and tribunal services and received straightforward digital access to courts for the first time. Those statistics demonstrate the benefits of the Bill. That is why I am very pleased to support it today.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I start by acknowledging some of the excellent contributions from Members across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) passionately made a plea, and a very important point, on the impact on some of the most deprived and how we should always mitigate that. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the much respected Chair of the Justice Committee, made a very important point about the right to reconsideration, which I will come on to in greater depth.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because it gives me the chance to do justice to his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and to remind the House of my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which I should have done before. The hon. Lady and I had a minor debate about whether Lord Judge or Lord Marks quoted Joshua Rozenberg. We have now worked out between us that Lord Marks quoted him in a debate on this Bill, but that Lord Judge quoted him in a debate on another occasion—so they both quoted him, and he has been quoted twice here.
Imran Hussain
I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee; he has saved me some time, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) asked me to clarify that matter in my speech.
I also acknowledge the contribution from the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), who rightly made the point about a consistency in approach across the judiciary and did so very well. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) spoke passionately about making our justice system the best in the world—which it already is, although we can improve it through further and better technology.
When the Government brought the Prisons and Courts Bill to the House, they declared an intention to reform our courts and judicial system. When that Bill fell because of the Prime Minister’s ill-fated decision to call a general election, they restated their intention for reform and brought this Bill before us. In opening the debate today, the Lord Chancellor spoke about court reform, new and innovative technology, and sweeping modernisation, yet the content of the Bill does not match his words. It is devoid of any substantial change that will encourage greater access to justice, and it wilfully omits—and even seeks to avoid—debate on the huge, pressing concerns present in our courts system. When seen in the wider context of the Government’s austerity agenda and cuts to the justice system, it seems to be less about reform and more about squeezing as much money as possible from the courts.
Even at first glance, this is a minimal, even empty, Bill—a view that is vindicated upon reading it in more detail. It contains provisions to extend the redeployment of judges, to rename some of the judiciary and to allow an increased use of the delegation of judicial functions to non-judicial staff. While all those measures have value, in no way do they capture all that is needed to reform our courts and judiciary. They are measures taken by a Government intent on introducing a drip-feed of legislation in the absence of their parliamentary majority, avoiding scrutiny. Not only have they omitted anything substantial, but they have drafted the Bill to avoid some of the most pressing issues facing the justice system. It makes no mention of measures to address legal aid cuts, court closures, judicial vacancies or the protection of domestic abuse victims. It is here where the real failures of reform lie.
On legal aid cuts, access to justice has been decimated. Spending has fallen by one third from £2.5 billion to £1.6 billion per year, and the number of civil legal aid cases has fallen from more than 500,000 in the year to April 2013 to just under 150,000 in the year to April 2017. Vulnerable people are being left unable to defend themselves in areas as fundamental as housing, employment, immigration and welfare benefits, and unnecessary costs are being created for the taxpayer as cases are going to court that could have been resolved earlier. Further costs for the public purse arising from cuts are causing issues such as poor health, homelessness and debt. When people lack the money or knowledge to enforce their rights, those rights are worth nothing more than the paper they are written on, yet the Bill fails to mention legal aid or the urgent need to reverse the changes imposed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
On court closures, the Bill is silent and has closed down discussion on this equally vital issue for people’s access to justice. It fails to address the significant £1 billion-plus courts reform programme that is being pushed through, as the Lord Chancellor stated earlier—but without any proper scrutiny. Since 2010, the courts and tribunals estate has changed significantly, with hundreds of courts having been closed in the name of austerity, and that has hampered people’s ability to access justice.
Many claimants and defendants must now travel miles to access justice and uphold their rights, the Government having closed their local courts, but many lack either the transport or the finances needed to do so and as a result have lost what should be their guaranteed right to justice. The Government argue that their modernisation programme reduces the need for an expansive courts estate, but we are clear that courts reform should increase access to justice, not ignore its erosion, and that any modernisation of our courts system must not be a smokescreen for cuts and closures that will cause long-term damage to access to justice.
As mentioned earlier, the Bill should have done much more to address the appalling situation of victims of domestic violence being subjected to questioning by those who assaulted them. Women’s Aid found that almost one in four of survey respondents had been cross-examined in this way. That unacceptable situation puts the victims of abuse through yet more torment and hardship, for no conceivable reason. It is cruel and barbaric. Measures to prevent it from happening and protect victims are supported by campaign groups on women’s rights and domestic violence, including Women’s Aid, but yet again such measures are absent from the Bill, despite having been in the Prisons and Courts Bill. There is no excuse for the Government’s not having included such measures in the Bill: that should shame them. I hope they can explain when such measures will be introduced to rectify the situation.
Where there is change, it is change that the Government have failed to impose with sufficient protection, and it is here that we will seek to amend the Bill. On a point of clarification, I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East did not mean to say earlier that we opposed the Bill: we will be abstaining today and tabling amendments in Committee. We are determined to deliver change and reform to the courts and judiciary, even if through the Government’s piecemeal efforts, but we are equally determined that it not be done at the expense of the judiciary, legal protections or judicial independence.
As the Government seek to delegate judicial functions to non-judicial staff, they must be careful of their use; they must not overuse non-judicial staff or use them as substitute judges to fill the significant number of judicial vacancies, which have risen to critical levels on their watch. Judges must absolutely remain at the top of their hierarchy in the courts, and their position must not be undermined by non-judicial staff assuming more and more of their functions. Granting further powers to non-judicial staff not only risks undermining the judiciary, but runs the even more dangerous risk of delegating serious judicial functions to unqualified staff.
It is important for the Bill to contain provisions that prevent excessive delegation, protect the reputation of the judiciary, and protect claimants, prosecutors and defendants from unqualified decisions. The Government ceded amendments to impose in primary legislation some restrictions on the type of judicial functions that authorised staff can discharge, but we need a strong further commitment; I hope that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister will strengthen their stance in that regard.
There are also insufficient protections for the expertise of our judiciary. Those would be provided through the imposition of a minimum standard on staff to whom decisions are delegated. The Government argue that authorised staff will not be making substantial decisions, but in his review of efficiency in criminal proceedings Sir Brian Leveson states that even non-contested elements of cases require experience, and Lord Briggs has said in his report that even if authorised staff are legally trained and qualified, they will not benefit from years of judicial experience in delivering the quality of services that is currently delivered by judges.
It is therefore extremely important that the decisions being delegated to authorised staff are appropriate to their experience and qualifications, as the prospect of non-qualified, inexperienced staff carrying out judicial functions is all too real and worrisome. When such staff make decisions, it is also vital for those decisions to be subject to a statutory right to judicial reconsideration.
The Government state in their factsheet that the functions and responsibilities delegated to authorised staff will be uncontested, but it is easy to see how that could shift in the future to authorised staff making contested decisions, particularly in the absence of a clear definition of what delegation can be given. Justice has said that some of the functions anticipated for authorised staff, such as extending time for service and taking pleas, may well give rise to contested matters and have consequences for cases. It is therefore essential for the Government to impose a statutory right to reconsideration for decisions taken by authorised staff—a view supported by the Bar Council. In not imposing such measures when the public have a real and reasonable expectation that significant contested decisions in a court will be made by a judge—or, if not, that there will at least be a right of appeal or review before a judge—the Government are also playing fast and loose with the public’s trust in the judiciary and the rule of law.
The Government may claim that the procedure rule committees could and would impose similar safeguards in any rules that they produce, but that is simply not good enough, given that their amendments fail to offer sufficient guarantees of a right of review. We think that, and so does the Bar Council, which believes that a further amendment is necessary to abate its concern that the Government could exert pressure on the PRCs to reduce the right of reconsideration to increase the turnover of cases and clear the backlog. We are adamant that any backlog must not be cleared through the removal of a fundamental legal right of reconsideration.
Let me end by confirming that we will abstain today, but look forward to the Government’s seriously considering our amendments in Committee. The Lord Chancellor opened the debate in a spirit of collaboration. I assure him that all our amendments are very reasonable, and I am sure that he is an amiable chap who will view them in the same light. If the Government want to deliver a worthwhile Bill, they must listen to these arguments, not throw them aside. They must consider them in Committee before returning the Bill to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
It gives me great pleasure to respond to the debate on this Bill, which, as many have said, is a small but important step in our court reform programme. As the Lord Chancellor set out in his speech, our courts together with our judiciary are respected throughout the world, but our courts and tribunals need to move with the times, and we have heard some excellent points today on how this Bill will improve our efficiency. I wish to respond to some of them.
As the excellent Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), said, the Bill’s measures are important technical reforms that require a statutory base. He highlighted the importance of the judicial process in general—the importance of each case to the individual whose case it is. These are important points that the Ministry of Justice must always bear in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) was right to point out, as I have, that this is but one part of a suite of measures of court reform. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) for saying there is a great deal that is good in this Bill, and she asked a number of questions that I am happy to answer. She said it is important that there be no reduction in justice over all, and was concerned about court closures. As 41% of our courts are used at less than half their available capacity, we must think about whether it is sensible to spend more money on the court estate as opposed to other things; at present a fifth of our budget is spent on the court estate. The hon. Lady suggested that we were pushing through this legislation at a time when the House is thinking about other things. That is patently untrue; its measures were included in the Prisons and Courts Bill, which was going through this House but fell at the general election.
The hon. Lady also raised concerns that must be addressed about the immigration tribunals. I highlight to her the measures we are introducing to give court staff the ability to undertake some judicial and other functions. They are already in operation in some tribunals. In the first and upper tier tribunals, for example, there are already three tiers of staff authorised to exercise different judicial functions; the most basic functions of issuing standard directions at commencement of a case can be carried out by authorised staff members at some chambers; slightly more complex functions are undertaken by caseworkers; and the most complex of the delegated functions are generally reserved to registrars, who are legally qualified. The hon. Lady asked whether I have read “The Secret Barrister”, and I am happy to confirm that the Lord Chancellor and I read it many months ago, just as we read many other publications that affect our Department.
The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) thought the measures were a cost-cutting exercise. They absolutely are not; we are asking ourselves how to use resources in the best way possible, how to deploy our judges as efficiently as possible, and how to ensure people get fair and swift judgment. That is not just our view; this is the view from Members across the House. As Lord Marks said in the other place,
“It seems to us relevant that the purpose of this part of the legislation is to increase efficiency and—hopefully, and to everybody’s advantage—the speed of decision-making within the court and tribunal systems, while making some cost savings in so doing.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 414.]
There are three key clauses in this Bill. One is clause 3 on authorised functions, which allows appropriately qualified and experienced court staff in civil, family and magistrates courts and the High Court, Court of Appeal, Court of Protection and tribunals to continue to carry out uncontroversial and straightforward judicial functions under judicial supervision. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) made an important point that I highlighted to the hon. Member for Bristol West: some court staff in these jurisdictions are already carrying out certain of these functions, but we are extending that to the Crown court and freeing up judges from the most routine tasks, ensuring that case preparation and management tasks are distributed at the appropriate level, or reserved to judges when that is proportionate.
As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) highlighted, the Bill prevents certain judicial functions—for or example, committing someone to prison or serving injunctions—from being undertaken by authorised staff. As his colleague Lord Marks said in the other place, it is right that these should not be delegated.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) suggested that there would be limited scrutiny of officers. This ignores the reality of the Bill, because their tasks will be set by the rule committee, which will be independent, judicially led and therefore best placed to determine the functions of staff. The committee will have a broad membership, including judiciary, representatives of court users and legal professionals. Lord Thomas said in the other place that
“it is important to stress the degree of control inherent in the Bill by the use of the rule committee. I was a member of and chaired…the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, which I can assure you is a highly representative body with many representatives of the legal profession.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]
The hon. Lady asked for three years’ post-qualification experience, but qualifications for staff giving legal advice should be set out in regulations, as they have been since 1979. Qualifications ought to depend on the functions involved, and many of the functions that staff currently exercise are straightforward and routine and do not require a legal qualification. An example would be the fixing of hearing dates. She also said that she wanted a statutory right for reconsideration, but many rule committees in the civil and judicial jurisdictions already have a right to reconsideration built in. Magistrates and family courts already have mechanisms for reviewing decisions. This is up to the rule committee, and if it decides not to create such a right, it must give its reasons to the Lord Chancellor, as the Bill states.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) talked about the independence of staff. The Bill introduces a statutory guarantee of independence from the Lord Chancellor for authorised Courts and Tribunals Service staff in all jurisdictions, and makes staff answerable to the Lord Chief Justice or the senior president of the tribunal, rather than the Lord Chancellor.
This has been a wide-ranging debate in which the technical matters of the Bill have been raised along with a large number of other matters, which I shall mention briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst talked about the wider Bill; I should stress that the Lord Chancellor and I are keen to bring forward wider legislation in relation to courts, and we will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) rightly advocated for the industry and parliamentary placement scheme, which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) also raised with me in oral questions recently. It is an excellent scheme, and I encourage all those who are interested in joining it to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham spoke about the importance of the judiciary, and he was absolutely right to highlight that point. Our judiciary is respected throughout the world, and we need to continue to attract the best talent to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley mentioned the importance of digitisation. We have a number of schemes in which we are bringing digitisation to our courts. For example, people can now apply online for probate, and petition online for divorce, and we are also bringing a significant amount of technology to the social security tribunal.
I would like to end by responding to the points raised by the hon. Member for Bolton South East and the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on the shadow Front Bench. They suggested that we were not addressing the bigger issues, but I would like to remind the House that we have been looking at the important question of legal aid for a number of months. We are in the middle of a legal aid review, and we are aware of the issues that are being raised. We will report on that by the end of the year. Hon. Members also raised the issue of domestic violence. As they will know, we have recently consulted on that issue, and we will be bringing in a domestic violence Bill. As they are also aware, cross-examination in the courts will be covered by that Bill.
Finally, we recently consulted on our approach to court closures, and I would like to clarify a number of matters raised today in relation to court closures and finance. The hon. Member for Bolton South East suggested that petty sums were being raised by our court closure programme, which is not true. Since 2015-16, we have recovered £122 million from the court closure programme, all of which is being reinvested in our justice system, and have spent approximately £170 million on capital maintenance.
The Ministry of Justice is committed to continuing to protect the individuals who go through our justice system, and to making their experience better, speedier, fair and just, and it is on that basis that I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Business without Debate
Tuesday 27th November 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 View all Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 108-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (12 Oct 2018)
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 5 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services)
That the draft Short Selling (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 9 October, be approved.
That the draft Deposit Guarantee Scheme and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 9 October, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)
That the draft Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts (Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 22 October, be approved.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.
Select Committee Practice and Procedure (Effective Working)
A National Carers Strategy for Unpaid Carers
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of the United Kingdom who are unpaid carers, including Katy Styles. Carers Rights Day is on Friday 30 November, and it is important that we show that unpaid carers are valued, and that we consider their need for a proper national carers strategy.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that unpaid carers require a National Carers Strategy; further that the Department of Health and Social Care asked unpaid carers for evidence for a Carers Strategy in 2016 and have failed to produce that Carers Strategy; and further notes an online petition (209717) on this subject has received 2,124 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the government to produce National Carers Strategy to support unpaid careers with wider changes to benefits, employment and health and care systems that unpaid carers need, resulting in recognition and valuing of unpaid carers contributions to society.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002298]
Jagtar Singh Johal
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the offices of Mr Speaker for allowing this important Adjournment debate this afternoon about my constituent, and a son of the Rock, Jagtar Singh Johal. It has not been straightforward, but as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have found many ways of raising the issue of my constituent’s ongoing detention in India on the Floor of the House over the past year, and it is a matter of ongoing concern that I must continue to find other ways to do so. Everyone will have heard me say over the past year that a critical element of all this is seeking a meeting with the Foreign Secretary of the day for myself and the Singh Johal family. I am glad to say that Jagtar’s brother is with us today in the Under-Gallery. He has travelled down from Dumbarton.
Jagtar Singh Johal is 31, and he grew up in the ancient burgh of Dumbarton in my constituency, attending Our Lady and St Patrick’s High School in the town, making him a true son of the Rock of Dumbarton. In October 2017, Jagtar travelled with his father and brothers, including Gurpreet, to be married to his wife, also known as Gurpreet, on 18 October 2017—a joyful occasion for the entire family.
While the rest of the immediate family travelled back to Scotland on 1 November, Jagtar decided to stay in Punjab with his wife because, as many Members will know, she required a visa to enter the UK—a visa, I must note, she has still to be granted, although I appreciate that does not enter the Minister’s purview.
On Saturday 4 November 2017, Jagtar and Gurpreet did something most couples usually do on a Saturday. They went shopping—we all do it—in Rama Mandi, just outside Jalandhar city, where he was suddenly stopped by two men who had no distinct markings or identification. He was hooded and taken away from his wife a little over a fortnight after their wedding. It subsequently emerged that the men were plain-clothed police officers, and that Jagtar was being taken to—forgive my pronunciation if it is not correct—Bagha Purana police station. I can only imagine the horror that Gurpreet must have felt seeing her husband being taken in such a manner.
It is a matter of considerable sadness that this was not the end of the ordeal. Jagtar was taken some considerable distance—I estimate it to be around two hours—from where he had been held in Jalandhar. It was there, according to Jagtar himself, that torture began almost immediately, and I must warn the House that I am now going to describe it:
“The torture took place over 4 days, from 4th until the 7th of November at Moga… The torture took place intermittently, numerous times each day. Electric shocks were administered by placing the crocodile clips on my ear lobes, nipples and private parts. Multiple shocks were given each day… At some stages I was left unable to walk and had to be carried out of the interrogation room. Since then I have had problems urinating… Threats of taking me to a remote location where I would be shot dead were also given. At one point petrol was brought into the room and I was threatened with being burnt”—
I would assume burnt alive. He continues:
“The police forced me to make recordings in which I had to name according to what they were telling me to say. Blank pages were also forcibly signed from me”.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, the importance of which is indicated by the number of Members present. Does he agree that the treatment of any British citizen or national in custody must be a concern of the Government and of the Minister? There is an onus on the Government to ensure that no torture of British subjects is accepted, wherever in the world it may happen. If a Government know torture is happening, action has to be taken.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and am sure he will know that I will not disagree.
It was extremely important to set my constituent’s predicament in context and to relate it to the House. It is also important to note that Jagtar’s letter is clear—some would say it is in unemotional language—despite the horror that he must have experienced. It is available to the state authorities of the Republic of India to investigate, should they ever wish to.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent leadership on this issue on behalf of his constituent. Does he agree that from the outset we have been asking for a fair and due process—for unhindered legal access, unhindered consular access, and an independent medical examination and investigation, which has not happened thus far? We have also asked for answers from Ministers on behalf of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, but unfortunately they have not been forthcoming, either.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I certainly will not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that in the rest of my speech I will answer every element of his questions prejinctly and precisely, and I will not disagree with him.
The UK high commission in Chandigarh was initially made aware of Jagtar’s detention on 6 November 2017. It first attempted to visit him on 10 November, although I must make it clear to everyone in the House that that authority was refused by the state authorities. I first raised the issue via a point of order on the Floor of this very House on 15 November that year—the day before Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials were granted access.
It is important to set out the process and the narrative—the historical reality, even over the short period of a year. The Tuesday after officials were granted access, Jagtar’s brother Gurpreet was in the Public Gallery for Foreign Office questions and heard me ask about the case. Like me, he was encouraged at that point to hear the response from the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who said:
“We take any allegation of torture seriously, as, indeed, do the Indian Government. It is completely unconstitutional and offensive to the British Government. We will work very closely to investigate the matter and will, of course, take extreme action if a British citizen is being tortured.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 858.]
Those were strong words that the family and myself appreciated. I will ask again at the end of my speech, but will the Minister today enlighten us as to what that extreme action was and what the Government’s investigations concluded? We should also note that the then Minister was of course removed with due haste.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has been tenacious on this issue over the past 12 months. Many of us have countersigned letters from him to the relevant Indian authorities. The Minister really has to tell us what the deputy high commissioner was doing making statements in The Times of India that certainly did not help Jagtar’s situation, along with why torture was allowed to continue without any real representations being made. I hope that he will answer these questions. A pattern is developing in which British citizens—either in Iran or in any other country now—seem to be under threat. I wonder what the Foreign Office is doing about that, and I hope the Minister will respond to that today.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am glad of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and grateful for his tenacious support over the past year, as I am for the support of so many Members from all parties. Many of them cannot be here today since the business has finished so early, because—would you believe it, Madam Deputy Speaker? —we seemingly have nothing to debate during Government time. What an incredible moment in the history of this place to be here when the House’s business falls at 4 o’clock in the afternoon. Nevertheless, it does give me the opportunity to talk for quite some time about my constituent’s case.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank my honourable comrade for giving way. He is making a fantastic speech, and he has been a tenacious campaigner. Will he give due credit not just to Members of this House, but to the hundreds of my constituents who have written to me about the issue? I am sure that I am not the only Member who has had hundreds of constituents writing in, expressing real concern about the lack of Government action.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am grateful for that intervention. There are citizens from all across these islands—not just members of our communities who happen to be Sikh—looking to support Jagtar Singh Johal. Of course, the Sikh communities across these islands are profoundly disturbed by the situation, but citizens across the whole of the UK and abroad—in Canada, Australia and other nations—are communicating with me on a regular basis to extend their support for the family’s wish for due process.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his formidable leadership on behalf of his constituent. Does he agree that, apart from direct contact with the Indian Government, it is important that the UK Government also make representations to the UN, in particular about UN special procedures and other UN mechanisms that can push this case further?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The hon. Member is, of course, correct. I will go into that in a bit more depth later in my speech.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for pursuing Jagtar’s case in the way that he has. He has, in solidarity with him, the support of the three gurdwaras in the Glasgow Central constituency. Does he agree that Jagtar’s case raises wider concerns for the members for each of those congregations that, when they travel to India, they may face similar threats and that there are real and genuine worries for their own safety?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I could not disagree, as I often say, with my hon. Friend. The gurdwaras not only in Scotland but across the whole of the UK share that concern about the ability of the Sikh diaspora to return to India and to engage freely. It is an issue for all of us as citizens, not just for those of a certain faith with clear relation to the Punjab. It is for any UK citizen travelling abroad to consider the support that they may be given once an issue arises.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Like others, I have heard from a significant number of constituents about this case, particularly from those who attend the Guru Nanak Sikh temple in Otago Street, but also, as my hon. Friend says, from the wider community. There are concerns about the different approaches that the UK Government seem to take to citizens held in captivity in different countries. Does he agree that there must be consistency of approach from the Foreign Office, that all UK citizens who are held overseas must be treated with fairness and justice, and that, where there is a question of injustice, we must make efforts to ensure that people have the opportunity to return home?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention; I think he might have read my speech and got to the end of it before me, because I was going to raise that point. I know that it is an issue not only for the all-party parliamentary group for British Sikhs—I see its redoubtable chair, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), in her place—but for the all-party group on deaths abroad and consular services, the chair of which is my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), who is on my party’s Front Bench at the moment.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I ask Members to bear with me, because I know that my hon. Friend wants to come in as well.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I, too, pay tribute to him for his dogged pursuit of justice in this case, which is marked by a lack of action by the UK Government in providing some response. Does he agree that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office deserves great praise this week for the work that it has done for Matthew Hedges, and that the speed and application that it has used to resolve that case contrasts with the situation of his constituent, Jagtar? What does he put that down to? Why does he think that things have taken so long in Jagtar’s case?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
If I had the answer to that, we would not need to have this debate on the Floor of the House today. I wish the young gentleman who has been released all the very best in their future. The clear issue is that my constituent is yet to appear in court and makes an accusation of torture. The similarity is glaring; my constituent’s situation is profound. I am sure that the Minister may wish to consider my hon. Friend’s question when responding.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
My hon. Friend has done an incredible job of making representations on his constituent’s behalf. The details of the alleged torture are horrific. The all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad and consular services was set up to understand why people who die abroad or are incarcerated illegally do not have the representation that they deserve from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Does he agree that the challenge between diplomatic relations and consular services is something that we must look into more and that the Government must do everything they can to address, to ensure that Jagtar is released and gets proper representation and due process?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I will not disagree with my hon. Friend. Interestingly, over the last few weeks the BBC has decided to run a programme that is, I suppose, trumpeting the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, critically, the staff who work there—the vast majority of whom do a very good job; I am sure that there are some in the advisers’ Box. Their commitment, which I will go into in more detail later, is second to none. I must be clear that I have much respect for the Minister of State at the Dispatch Box, and am grateful for their personal engagement and support on this issue. However, right at the top of the FCO there are very serious concerns about investment.
When the BBC shows next week’s episode of how wonderful the FCO is—it will cover consular support, which has been mentioned—I do hope it gets to the nitty-gritty regarding the FCO teams on the ground. I am not saying that these teams are making it up on the hoof, but they are having to work with situations as they emerge without what I would consider to be a proper framework like those used by teams in the United States and other Commonwealth nations.
I hope to make some progress, because the fact that the Adjournment was moved early means that I could technically talk until about quarter past 7.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
We will move on quickly.
Let me return to my constituent’s position. Things moved very quickly in the initial stages, and the then Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who I see is not even on the Back Benches today despite having a very substantial Sikh diaspora in their constituency—raised the issue with the Indian Minister of External Affairs. The following day, the UK high commissioner raised the issue again with Indian Ministers, and the deputy high commissioner even met with the Chief Minister of Punjab on 1 December.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for acquiring this really important debate. He is making an excellent speech. May I put on the record how commendable his leadership in this case has been? I know that the situation has been very difficult. Does he agree that, despite the deputy high commissioner in Chandigarh meeting with Jagtar, it is unclear what representations—if any—he made to the Chief Minister of Punjab in respect of the case and the serious allegation of torture?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The hon. Member makes a serious point of which the House must be aware. Yes, I am still of that opinion. The deputy high commissioner returned to the UK from India in recent months, and was discussing my constituent’s issue in public meetings. No invitation was extended to me as my constituent’s MP to discuss the case with the deputy high commissioner. No invitation was extended to his family—sitting in the Under Gallery today—to discuss it.
How did it come about that I and my constituent’s family got to discuss the issue with the deputy high commissioner, who has visited my constituent? I have not had that luxury. It was through the office of the hon. Member, who was aware of him being in the country. To say that that meeting was fraught, or even frosty, would, I think, be the diplomatic way of putting it. So, wholeheartedly, I cannot disagree with the hon. Member.
Although the initial contacts have been welcome—I cannot say that they have not—these issues create the consistent narrative over the past year: superficiality underpinned by an incoherent approach to consular support that should concern all of us. Whether or not the Government live up to the promise given by the then Minister of State about extreme action, I hope that when the Minister rises to respond, he will correct me if I have doubts about that.
I am glad to say that the Government have not been the only source of pressure applied to the Government of the Republic of India on Jagtar’s case. In this place, the APPG on UK Sikhs, led by the redoubtable hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, has been a great source of support for me, for the family, and for my staff—or rather my team; I do not use the word “staff”—some of whom are in the Gallery. It has been a great source of information and has done its bit to raise awareness of the story. A few of its members are in the Chamber today. I am extremely personally grateful to them.
The Sikh community across these islands make an invaluable contribution to our daily life and culture. They have also been vocal in keeping this case in the limelight. Whether it be organisations such as the Sikh Federation, or gurdwaras across these islands, I would not have been buttonholed by so many right hon. and hon. Members asking me about the case were it not for their Sikh constituents raising it repeatedly with them. I pay due tribute to those members of the Sikh community across the UK. They face some very difficult decisions about what it means to be Sikh in relation to India. There is a clear issue in how they approach return to the Punjab in relation to some of the issues we raise here today.
The Singh Johal family and I have been very grateful for the work that the charity Redress has done. Again due to the fact that the House’s business has fallen early, some of its staff and team who wanted to be here today cannot. I pay due regard to them for the work that they have done. Redress helps survivors of torture to obtain justice, and its attempts in this case have been most welcome. We heard earlier reference to the United Nations. It was Redress that sent an appeal to the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Professor Nils Melzer, in December last year, asking the UN to ensure that the Republic of India could guarantee that Jagtar would suffer no repeat of the alleged torture of that November.
Jagtar’s case also featured in the report released earlier this year about the plight of UK nationals tortured abroad. However, it is my deep regret to say that this has not been met with any discernible reaction from the Republic of India authorities, despite the numerous examples cited in the Government-to-Government contacts, and despite my having first raised the issue with them some time ago.
In having this debate on the Floor of the House, I do not intend to disagree with the Government of the Republic of India on their sovereign right and ability to apply the laws of their republic in the way that they see fit. To do so from the Floor of a former colonial Parliament would be an affront to their dignity and the sovereignty of their citizenship. Nevertheless, my duty to my constituent is to highlight that serious charges have been laid, and I must only hope that they are tested in a manner consistent with the laws and practices of the Republic of India—that is, the rule of law and due process, some of the few things that I believe everyone in this House can support. However, I am afraid to say that those two necessary pillars of liberal democratic statehood are being sorely tested in Jagtar’s case.
Just over a month after he was arrested, and just after Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials had met with Jagtar, a story appeared on the “Times Now” website that appeared to show extensive knowledge of the case and, most disturbingly, showed a video of Jagtar confessing to several crimes—something that he obviously contends was done under duress. That has set the pattern for a series of seemingly well-informed leaks and briefings to Indian media regarding the case, which have caused great concern to those who wish to see Jagtar receive a fair trial and which have often had a sinister, if not sectarian, air.
In terms of due process, it is very important that I am not standing here—nor should any Member of any Parliament in a liberal democracy—demanding that under the rule of law a constituent is set free before trial if serious charges are being brought.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I would like to say on behalf of Scottish Labour Members that we support the Sikh community, and we support the hon. Gentleman in the work he is doing for his constituent.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I thank the hon. Member for that.
The notion is quite clear. My constituent has now been in court more than 60 times. Not one witness is brought forward—no one appears—and he is then taken back to prison. I wish for him to either receive a fair, transparent trial based on due process, with charges that are properly laid, or, if there are no witnesses and no evidence, for him to be released.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is the critical one. The legitimate role for him as the constituency MP and for others in the Chamber who represent large Sikh communities throughout the UK is not to tell Indian Ministers or Indian courts what to do, but, through Ministers and the Foreign Office, to ask that citizens are afforded proper consular access, due process and fair trials. It is then up to the legal system to pronounce on guilt or innocence, but it is legitimate for us to ask for those things.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I certainly agree. The international rules-based system is being attacked at every corner, and those of us who believe in liberal democratic government should give no inch to calling out undemocratic practice, whether it be by a close ally, the Republic of India or the United Arab Emirates.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my fellow member of the Defence Committee, for giving way. Is not the crux of the matter that if India is so sure about Jagtar’s guilt and thinks it has assembled so much evidence, it should either let him free or—I hope this is what our Foreign Office is saying—bring this to a conclusion and bring the case to a trial? Otherwise, with over a year having gone by, it has not established a case.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The right hon. Member makes a clear point. Since nearly day one in this case, state authorities in Punjab have been quite open that they believe my constituent to be guilty. They have conducted a trial by media, and they have made it quite clear that they expect him to be found guilty if a trial should ever take place. That clearly undermines the very principle of due process in the Republic of India, which should concern us all.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is passionate in support of his constituent, as he has been over the past year. Does he share my concern that the Indian authorities are currently not only sitting on their hands, but actually boasting of their diplomatic successes with the UK Government?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am certainly not going to disagree, because I think everybody is boasting about their diplomatic successes against the UK at the moment in a most dreadful sense, and that should concern us all.
The epitome of the approach was seen in the recent appearance of Indian Deputy High Commissioner Dinesh Patnaik on the BBC Asian Network in January, when he breezily said that
“Jagtar will be charged and he has not been subject to torture”,
despite the lack of any public investigation by the authorities of the Republic of India and the fact that no charges were laid before the courts, basically, for more than six months. These realities must be passed on if people are to understand the true nature of what is happening. Such comments have led many to conclude that due process has been overlooked, if not intentionally undermined, and that many have already made up their mind about my constituent’s innocence or guilt—something that is utterly unacceptable to me, I am sure to the Minister and I hope to Members in all parts of the House.
Hannah Bardell
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Just to take him back very briefly to the point about media and press coverage, there are some significant parallels with the case of my constituent Kirsty Maxwell, who was, we believe, killed abroad, in Spain. The stress it causes to the family when there is misreporting and misinformation in the media and often the lack of support from the FCO—I appreciate that there are significant challenges—is something that we absolutely must address. I commend my hon. Friend for the comments he has made and the challenge he has offered to the Indian press in regard to his constituent.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. On the media and differing approaches, since I was first elected to this House in 2015, I have had to deal with several cases of consular support, where media intrusion has had a detrimental impact on the cases. That is true not just in Jagtar’s case. I am mindful of the case of my constituent Lisa Brown, who has been missing in Spain—we presume murdered—and the distress caused to her family by some of the ways in which the media approached that case. It is the same for many Members who have constituents who have died or are in detention abroad.
I can only hope that the publicity generated by this debate will leave the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in no doubt that it must not relent in its efforts to ensure that all these elements—transparency over the torture allegation; due process; the assumption of innocence until proven guilty; and the rule of law in ensuring that all allegations are dealt with appropriately—are addressed by the Government of the Republic of India. The family and I expect the FCO to fulfil these duties. Critically, at some point down the line, we may eventually be able to have a trade agreement with the Republic of India. What type of trade will we have where we might sacrifice our ability to defend democracy and its pillars for free trade?
Let me touch on elements away from Jagtar’s case that give me cause for concern. The job of a Member of Parliament gives you the privilege and the challenge of representing all your constituents, and this often means offering assistance when they have had adverse experiences abroad. As I have said, Jagtar’s case is not the only one that I have seen up close with the FCO. Although I have found the overwhelming majority of those who work in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be professional, dedicated and diligent representatives of their organisation—I cannot name them, but they have heard me say this—they are dealing with structures and resources that often do not allow them to give the level of service they would hope to. That can cause a large amount of frustration for family members and create a vicious cycle of misunderstanding and failed expectation.
When Jagtar’s brother and I hear a Minister of the Crown say from the Dispatch Box that they will take “extreme action”, we do not immediately appreciate—none of us would—that the staff at the sharp end of that action will be under-resourced, poorly supported and left at the whims of the politicians who lead that organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) shone a light on that in her work on the all-party group on deaths abroad and consular services. I am sure Members across the House will agree that this vital work should improve the experiences of our constituents, should they find themselves in the same position as Jagtar’s family.
We all appreciate that we are in the middle of the greatest upheaval in this political state’s foreign policy since 1921. If Members do not know what happened to what was then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1921-22, they should go to the Library. It has been all too often left unsaid in our present predicament that a “global Britain” of any sort must be properly resourced and that resources must not be to the detriment of consular services across the globe. Ensuring a consistent service, allowing the best practice, which we know exists in the FCO, and listening to the thousands of dedicated, diligent and professional staff across the globe to ensure that families who experience the worst are given a clear but compassionate idea of the roles of the FCO and the responsibilities it has towards them, would make a world of difference. They are not asking for huge elements of massive investment; they are asking for clarity and a process that we can all agree on.
Families such as Jagtar’s appreciate that there is no simple way to assuage their concerns, and that the efforts made by Ministers cannot always be made public or be shared with them. The family and I appreciate the efforts of the Prime Minister in raising the case with her counterpart, Prime Minister Modi, in April, but I am sure the Minister appreciates that we are wondering why it is still necessary to be asking many of the same questions as we were a year ago through an Adjournment debate on the Floor of the House of Commons.
You may be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am going to start bringing my remarks to a close.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
With that, my hon. Friend would like to intervene. I will certainly give way.
Hannah Bardell
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he share my concern about properly resourcing and training our consular staff? They do a very difficult job in some of the most challenging circumstances, but they will be facing up to £1 billion of cuts in the coming financial year. Add to that the challenge of Brexit, and our FCO needs the support of this Government and its Ministers to ensure that our constituents are properly represented when they get into challenges or trouble abroad.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am not going to disagree with my hon. Friend. There is a resource issue. One of the FCO’s greatest resources is its members of staff. They have knowledge and capacity. No matter what I think of the constitutional position of this country, they are diligent professionals in their jobs.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I praise my hon. Friend for his tireless campaign on behalf of his constituent Jagtar and his family. Does he share my deep concern that, given the FCO’s recent success and the publicity around the Matthew Hughes case, it is simply not good enough for the Minister to stand here today and offer platitudes? There has been inaction and a lack of capacity in this case, which has resulted in Jagtar’s family being adversely affected. Does he share my concern that the Minister can and should do more in this case?
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. As parliamentarians, we all appreciate that every consular case is different. We cannot assume that any case is the same and therefore we appreciate a level of flexibility. As I said earlier, in the case from the UAE, it is extraordinary how this has suddenly happened. I am delighted for them, but there are levels at which even the Minister could not answer the questions. I will give them that, because as I said the Minister of State has been resolute in their support.
We now need to wind up and ask the questions specifically on the case of Jagtar Singh Johal that the Minister will be able to answer, or to take away and write to us on. First, what does extreme action mean? Can the Minister tell us how that has been undertaken since those words were uttered by the then Minister of State at the Dispatch Box? What have the authorities of the Republic of India done, if anything, to address the allegations of torture that now rest with the UN rapporteur? Does the Minister agree with me that the leaks and briefings to the press from the authorities in India risk making a fair trial for Jagtar all but impossible?
Will the Minister tell me what plans the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has to improve the experiences of families of UK citizens who have adverse experiences abroad? Finally—this is the important question—when will the Secretary of State fulfil the commitment of their predecessor to meet me and the Singh Johal family? How has it come about that I am having to make that request on the Floor of the House of Commons when time and again communication with Ministers has not even seen a reply? It even got to the point, Madam Deputy Speaker, where I had to ask Mr Speaker how to go about getting an answer, to which the reply was, “You have written your letter, and if you have not had a reply, how about putting down a written question?” What an extraordinary state of affairs in a modern parliamentary democracy. What do we have to go back to—the quill and paper?
That question is important, because of the inconsistency of the narrative in other cases. The Foreign Secretary—both the present one and their predecessor—has unequivocally opened their doors to meet certain families in specific cases. I am absolutely delighted for them, but this is an extraordinary state of affairs. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) across from me. I said earlier that I would mention an incident that happened to us both in relation to this case. My hon. Friend, as a constituency MP, met the then Foreign Secretary and that meeting about my constituent—any MP can talk about an issue raised by their own constituents—made its way to social media. I was delighted that that raised the issue, but I was not delighted that the Foreign Secretary was sitting talking to another constituency MP about my constituent’s issue when they would not respond to letters and—I give a nod to the Minister, who is on a sticky wicket here—said from a sedentary position, “Wurr wurr wurr” and then was off within a week.
Eddie Hughes
I use the words “hon. Friend” deliberately. Jagtar’s cousin lives in my constituency and came to see me. I have a strong and large Sikh community in my constituency, so of course I took that opportunity to raise that case on their behalf. All I meant to do was add my weight to support the case being made by my hon. Friend.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am delighted at what my hon. Friend did, because it gave the case impetus. It reminds the nation state and Members that this continues, but the Foreign Secretary had to be asked via someone else on the Floor of the House, “Are you going to meet him?” What a ridiculous proposition—that it comes to that stage. So the final question is: when is the Foreign Secretary going to meet the constituency Member for West Dunbartonshire and the Singh Johal family?
These allegations of mental and physical torture, of threats of violence against family members, simulated executions and forced confessions were horrifying enough when we first heard them more than a year ago. It has got harder as the year has gone on. Furthermore, the longer it takes for the authorities of the Republic of India to address the issue, the possibility of torture reoccurring cannot be ruled out. I hope everyone in this House can join me in beseeching the Government of the Republic of India to do all they can to ensure that transparency, due process and the rule of law win the day in this case.
I am grateful to the hon. Members who have attended this debate today, and to those who have intimated their support but who have not been able to be here. We are showing our support to the wider Sikh community across these islands for my constituent, a son of the Rock of Dumbarton.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for securing this debate on the detention of his constituent in India, on whose behalf he has been working extremely hard this past year or so. I recognise the deep concern felt by a number of other Members who are gracing us with their presence in this Adjournment debate about Mr Johal’s situation. Representing as I do an inner-city seat—the one that covers where we are today—I, too, have a reasonably sized Sikh community in my constituency, and it has made me well aware at the outset of the issues in this case.
May I also say how much we appreciate what a desperately difficult time this must be for Mr Johal’s family and friends, as well as for the wider Sikh community in the UK, particularly in view of the specific concerns about mistreatment and torture, about which the hon. Gentleman gave us details?
Mr Dhesi
Does the Minister appreciate and acknowledge that the family of Jagtar Singh Johal have been resolute in persisting that Jagtar is innocent? On the serious allegations of torture and confession under duress, the very least the family deserves is for the Foreign Secretary to meet them, along with the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), to try to get to the bottom of this issue.
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As he knows, although perhaps the House does not, we have tried to work together on issues to ensure that the important contribution the Sikh community has made is recognised. Work is ongoing to try to get a proper memorial of the work done by that community during the wars. Obviously, I do not have control of the Foreign Secretary’s diary, but he will be well aware that this debate is taking place. It has not been a standard half-hour, two-Member Adjournment debate; the fact that so many Members have contributed is powerful. I will make representations to him that he should do as the hon. Gentleman wishes.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said. I accept that the Minister cannot commit the Foreign Secretary to meeting the family, but he can certainly convey the message. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who secured a meeting with and spoke to the Foreign Secretary, it does not look good if the Foreign Secretary does not meet the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) about this case. It is important that we try to convey that to the Foreign Secretary.
Mark Field
As the hon. Gentleman will know, I always try to work on a cross-party basis, particularly on these very difficult matters. For those who are interested in the BBC programme on the Foreign Office, I believe that Thursday’s programme will talk about a particular consular case from Cambodia—my part of the world—on which half a dozen MPs on a cross-party basis expressed particular concerns.
Let me try to respond to many of the points that have been raised. I undertake to write to those whose questions I may not be in a position to answer fully.
Hannah Bardell
Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to those points, I say gently to him that when I set up the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad and consular services, I could not have imagined the impact that it would have on me and my staff, who have heard evidence from over 50 families. I cannot imagine what it is like for the family of someone who has died abroad, been incarcerated, held prisoner or gone missing. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, on a personal basis, that the testimonies of those families have highlighted to me that there are significant challenges and failings, and I believe that there are areas on which we can work together across the House, because almost every Member has had such a constituency case. I hope that he will give a commitment today to work with me and the all-party group to fix some of those issues and look for solutions to make sure that no family has to go through what Jagtar’s family—or any of the other families that we have heard evidence from—have had to go through.
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. While I inevitably cannot make a guarantee that no other families will go through some of these difficulties, I am clearly only too happy to work with her. Unfortunately, it is the nature of being a Foreign Office Minister that in the past 18 months, I have met several families—not constituents of mine, but of other hon. Members—who have been through the harrowing experiences to which she referred.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am grateful to the Minister for the beginning of his response. I just want to reiterate all Members’ understanding of the commitment and diligence of many of the members of staff in the FCO, who are the Department’s greatest asset. That needs to be put on the record yet again.
Mark Field
I am very pleased to hear that, not least on behalf of my private office and all who work in my team; I am very honoured and lucky to be a Minister in that Department. While I accept that, on occasion, mistakes can be made and there can be oversights—that is human nature—we generally have an extremely professional and dedicated team throughout the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but particularly in the consular area, where some extremely harrowing work goes on; that team deals with that daily. MPs all deal with constituents’ cases that are heart-rending to the first degree, but those cases are probably the exception, rather than the rule. In consular cases—I think particularly of our consular help in some of the Balearic islands, or in places such as Thailand—staff deal with the tragic deaths of young people virtually daily, and these things are very difficult.
I start by putting a formal apology on the record—this is something that I have done in writing—to Mr Gurpreet Johal for my Department’s failure to respond to his freedom of information request in a timely manner. We aim for the highest standards of customer service, and I am deeply apologetic about not having met those on this occasion.
As I said to colleagues in the House when this issue was last debated in March, Mr Johal’s case is very well known to me, and has been a priority for the Government at the highest levels since his arrest just over a year ago. The then Foreign Secretary raised concerns with his Indian counterpart soon after Mr Johal’s arrest, pressing for effective consular access. As the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire pointed out, the Prime Minister raised concerns about Mr Johal’s case directly with Prime Minister Modi of the Republic of India when he visited the United Kingdom in April.
Mr Johal’s situation has also been a priority for me. I personally raised his case with the Minister for foreign affairs during my visit to India earlier this year. I also raised it last month with India’s outgoing high commissioner to the UK, Mr Sinha, and just this morning, I was able to reiterate those concerns to the new Indian high commissioner. I can reassure the House that she is apprised not just of the FCO’s interest, but—very importantly—of the interest of many parliamentarians in seeing a thorough and effective investigation of Jagtar’s allegations.
I would like to say something about the role of all-party parliamentary groups. In my view, they are invaluable. As many right hon. and hon. Members will know, I try to engage with their members in meetings as far as I can—I was at a joint meeting of the all-party groups on Bangladesh and Burma only yesterday. They are valuable because what happens in the House, whether in parliamentary questions or through all-party groups, is noticed and quickly reported back by high commissions and embassies, so I encourage hon. Members to work through APPGs—they are an effective way of making a strong case, even if they do put pressure on us as Ministers.
I want to touch on one of the disappointing things about this case. When I came into office 18 months ago, I inherited the notorious Chennai Six case, which had been dragging on for almost five years by that stage, and we were able to get the individuals released within a matter of months. These things often take time. The Indian legal process can be slow, as indeed can ours—I am not making a value judgment—and, as I hope the House will understand, I have always tried when dealing with consular cases to downplay expectations, to under-promise and over-deliver, and to make it clear that sometimes one has to wait a long time for a response. I know it can be incredibly frustrating, particularly when there are allegations, as there are here, of maltreatment and torture, in which case it becomes an even more serious state of affairs.
As the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire will be aware, we have met with Mr Johal’s brother, Gurpreet, three times in the past year to discuss the very slow progress of this case, and I have offered the family a further meeting. I will try to make representations so that they can meet the Foreign Secretary, although I suspect that I would also be at any such meeting. Embassy officials, including our high commissioner in New Delhi, have raised concerns with the most senior officials of the Indian authorities on a number of occasions, and our consular staff have been working hard to assist Mr Johal and his family, both in India and here in the UK. I understand that staff in India have visited him 15 times since his arrest, most recently on 5 November. These visits allow us to monitor Mr Johal’s welfare and check that he continues to be able to meet his legal representatives in private, which was obviously not the case in the early months of his incarceration.
One of our key concerns in our representations has been Mr Johal’s allegations of torture and mistreatment during his initial period in police custody and his right to be afforded a fair trial. In all fairness, I would probably not have used the phrase “extreme action”—“extreme” is not something that many people would associate with me and my brand of politics—but none the less, such allegations are taken extremely seriously. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), who is no longer in her place, asked about raising the case with the UN and about the UN’s special procedures. We will continue to co-operate closely with all the mechanisms of the UN Human Rights Council, and we encourage all other countries, including India, to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. We will ensure that this case is brought to his attention.
On 14 December 2017, Mr Johal asked us to raise these allegations of torture and maltreatment. Once we had the details, we did so without delay, making clear our expectation that India should conduct an impartial investigation and an independent medical examination. We continue to raise the allegations vigorously.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Is the Minister saying that the authorities of the Republic of India have yet to respond to those questions, are refuting the allegations or are saying that these things happened?
Mark Field
At this stage, they are refuting that these things happened, but again, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the full details, if I may, because I would rather not inadvertently say something inaccurate on the Floor of the House.
Torture and mistreatment of detainees is prohibited under international law, and is absolutely unacceptable in any circumstances. We therefore take allegations of such conduct very seriously, but we must also take care to avoid doing anything that might put the person making an allegation, or those connected with him, at any further risk. Our priority is always to ensure the best interests of the detainee.
I think many Members will understand that in cases such as this, a great deal of work often goes on underneath the radar rather than with a hell of a lot of publicity. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that any sense that there have been leaks and briefings to the press—again, I am not suggesting that that has happened, but clearly the press have run some stories in India—risks undermining any chance of a fair trial. That is not an acceptable state of affairs, and it would be no more acceptable here in the United Kingdom. Our priority will always be to ensure the best interests of the detainee. Decisions on the precise action that we might take in response to allegations of mistreatment will be made on a case-by-case basis, and only with the individual’s consent.
When British nationals are detained overseas, their health and welfare are our top priority. We make every effort to ensure that prisoners are receiving adequate food, water and medical treatment, and that they have access to legal advice at the earliest opportunity. In cases of dual nationality—the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) raised a particular case—we do not have that locus, a position that I think Members will understand, if not entirely support. If a person with dual nationality is incarcerated in the other country of which he or she is a citizen, it is not our place to have consular standing.
As soon as we hear about a detention or arrest, our consular staff will attempt to make contact and visit the individual as early as possible. Subsequent visits will of course depend on the nature and context of the case, and, in some cases, on the practicalities—someone who is imprisoned many hundreds of miles from the nearest consular headquarters or high commission may be more difficult to visit on a regular basis—but we are aware that for many detainees our visits are a lifeline, and that our staff may well be the only visitors that some receive.
I can assure Members that we aim to afford every case equal importance, and to provide tailored support and guidance for individuals and their families. There are more than 2,000 British nationals in detention around the world at any one time, and in the last financial year alone, our staff overseas dealt with approximately 5,000 detainees. It is difficult to operate a standard procedure when dealing with those numbers, and in some cases, with the best will in the world, we will be seen to have fallen short. I will try to ensure that we have flexible standards that we can apply across the board, while taking account of the differing circumstances. I am happy to work with the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad and consular services to try to find a protocol that works for the future.
Providing consular assistance for any British national in distress overseas is central to our work at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Although the Government do not have a legal duty of care to British nationals abroad, we are proud that we continue to provide a comprehensive, round-the-clock service for anyone who finds themselves in difficulty. We work particularly hard to support those who may be vulnerable and are most in need of our help. We also have a long-standing partnership with a charity called Prisoners Abroad, which gives practical and emotional support to British people who are detained overseas.
There are, of course, limitations to the extent of the service that we can offer. We are not in a position to make decisions on behalf of people, nor are we able to do everything that might be asked of us at any one time. As a matter of policy we do not pay outstanding bills, including legal fees, as we are not funded to provide financial assistance; nor does the FCO seek preferential treatment for British nationals. That means we do not, and must not, interfere in civil and criminal court proceedings, and the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire was very understanding on that in his contribution. It is right that we respect the legal systems of other countries, just as we would expect foreign nationals to respect our laws and legal processes when here in the UK. However, we can intervene on behalf of British nationals when they are not treated in line with internationally accepted standards or if there are unreasonable delays in procedures.
A number of colleagues have raised the case of Matthew Hedges, and everyone is delighted that the UAE has chosen to pardon him in such short order. The assistance we provide to British nationals depends entirely on the individual circumstances of the case and the local conditions, so it is unfair to draw, or make any implications about, comparisons in particular cases. Our actions are designed to be appropriate to the individual and as effective as possible. There is no suggestion of preferential treatment because of any cultural or other difficulties. The Chennai Six were all long-standing British, English and Scottish citizens; no racial element could possibly have been suggested for their lengthy incarceration.
In many ways the Matthew Hedges case is a good example of something all of us in the Foreign Office and in consular circles can rejoice in: a case that gets turned around unexpectedly very quickly. But for every win, as it were, of that description, there are many other cases where we are working extremely hard for many months, perhaps under the radar, without quick and positive results of that sort.
A number of colleagues have spoken movingly about the impact that a death overseas can have on loved ones, particularly when that death takes place in violent or distressing circumstances. Our staff across the world will continue to work with dedication and empathy to support British nationals when they require our assistance. We welcome feedback from British nationals who have received consular assistance, and indeed from their relatives who have also had that assistance, and we will try to improve our services and staff. I make a pledge to work closely with the all-party group, and I hope Members present will play their part in that.
We are talking about some of the most distressing and difficult cases, and it is distressing to me that there are British citizens who feel that the FCO has fallen short in its consular service on some occasions. We will continue to take that very seriously, and if we can work together as a Parliament on a cross-party basis to find a way to make improvements, I stand ready to work with colleagues.
The detention of a loved one is distressing in any circumstances —it would be distressing to any of us if one of our relatives were in that position—and particularly when it happens overseas, where contact with friends and family is limited and the legal process is unfamiliar. Our consular staff at home and abroad work hard to support families in such situations. We often have locally employed members of staff who can speak local languages and have a greater understanding of the culture and the different legal processes, and they play an important part in our consular teams across the world. We take every case extremely seriously and provide dedicated consular assistance to those most in need of our help literally seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
In the case of Mr Johal, I can assure the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire that we will continue to do all we can to support him and his family. The fact that we have had this debate here today will make it clear to the Indian authorities and the new Indian high commissioner here in London that we will continue to raise our concerns about his case at the highest levels until there is a resolution.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Mental Health (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2018
(6 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Mental Health (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2018.
It is good to have you in charge of our proceedings this morning, Ms Buck. It is early on a Tuesday and we are considering a relatively straightforward and technical change to mental health regulations, so I am not planning to go into excruciating detail about everything, but I am very happy to answer any questions that Committee members may have.
Suffice it to say that we are here simply because, through an unintended consequence of a recent change in court procedure rules, people who are currently detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 because they present a danger either to themselves or potentially to members of the public could, contrary to the Act’s intention, be let out at a moment when they still do so. Clearly that is not something that anybody here would want, nor is it an intended consequence of the changes to court procedures that have allowed it, so it is a loophole that we wish to close as fast as we can. I will happily go into detail about anything that hon. Members may wish to ask about how and why this has happened. A lot of detail is already given in the explanatory memorandum, but I am happy to fill in any gaps.
Let me add two brief points to reassure Committee members before I do something unusual for a politician and stop talking and sit down. First, the draft order has been discussed by and is supported by all five of the major parties in Northern Ireland, and I am given to understand—I am sure the Labour spokesperson will correct me if I am wrong—that the Opposition do not oppose it, so I hope there is cross-party consensus for the measure. Secondly, let me reassure hon. Members that it is not some sort of creeping attempt at reinstalling direct rule over Northern Ireland from Westminster. Instead, it is a necessary and, I hope, proportionate response to a very specific and narrow, but important, technical problem that has arisen unintentionally.
The draft order does not involve any change in policy and makes no substantive alteration to the original settled will of any democratic decisions; it merely reinstates something that has accidentally been eroded. It relates to a matter that everybody here would want the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on if it were sitting, but because of the risk to the safety of sufferers or of people who might come into contact with them if they are let out at the wrong moment, we feel that such a step is necessary. We do not want anyone to take it as establishing a precedent in the wrong direction against the principles of devolution of power to Northern Ireland.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I am pleased that the Minister has reinforced the fact that the draft order is necessary but that it in no way gets in the way of what everyone in this House desires: to see devolution in Northern Ireland get back on track as soon as possible. As he has said, the draft order makes a straightforward, technical and necessary change to the mental health regulations. The Opposition agree wholeheartedly with the approach taken, which plugs an inadvertent gap. We fully support the Minister and are very pleased to hear that consultation with Northern Ireland parties confirms that he has their support as well.
John Penrose
I am delighted to have cross-party support, so I hope that the Committee can dispatch this business very quickly.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Variation of Borrowing Power) Order 2018
(6 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Nigel Adams)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Variation of Borrowing Power) Order 2018.
As always, Mr Sharma, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The draft order will deliver on the commitment that the Government made in the St David’s Day agreement to extend the Welsh Government’s borrowing powers to enable Welsh Ministers to issue bonds to borrow for capital expenditure.
The Welsh Government already have extensive capital borrowing powers. The Wales Act 2014 provided that Welsh Ministers may borrow up to £500 million to fund capital investment. Those powers went hand in hand with the tax powers in the Act, which the Assembly has used to establish the land transaction tax and the landfill disposal tax. They placed fiscal responsibility and greater accountability at the heart of the Welsh devolution settlement. Following the historic agreement with the Welsh Government on the fiscal framework for Wales in December 2016, the Wales Act 2017 doubled the borrowing limit to £1 billion, with an annual limit of £150 million, in anticipation of Welsh rates of income tax coming on stream from April next year.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. Will he give a categorical assurance that the extended powers under our consideration have nothing to do with the Budget announcement on page 66 of the Red Book that tied extra borrowing powers to a specific project in Wales? Will he reassure me that the Welsh Government will be able to utilise the borrowing capacity that comes with those powers as they so wish?
Nigel Adams
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. The draft order is about adapting the means by which the Welsh Government can borrow, whereas what was announced in the Budget was about the additional amount that will be considered during the spending review.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget that at the spending review we will undertake a review of the Welsh Government’s capital borrowing powers and consider whether the borrowing cap should be increased by up to £300 million to support the delivery of a new M4 relief road. I know that many people and businesses have called for improvements to that vital artery of Wales; no doubt they welcomed that announcement.
The draft order is not about changing the amount that Welsh Ministers can borrow, but about providing greater flexibility and choice for the Welsh Government over the sources of borrowing that they wish to pursue. To date, Welsh Ministers have been limited to borrowing either from the national loans fund, which is part of the UK Government, or from commercial banks. The draft order, which is made under section 121(4) of the Wales Act 2014, will extend the means by which Ministers in Wales can borrow, to include bond issuance. It is, of course, a matter for Welsh Ministers to decide which source of borrowing provides the best value for money for Welsh taxpayers at any given time.
I am pleased to note that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have both approved the draft order. I commend it to the Committee.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I welcome the Minister again; this is the second time in two weeks that we have met in a Committee on a statutory instrument that devolves additional powers to Wales, and long may that continue. Once again I welcome the devolution of additional powers, but once again—with your permission, Mr Sharma—I must issue my own warnings and express my own concerns about power going the other way, should Brexit go forward, with respect to additional finance to Wales from Europe and the additional powers that we had under the previous system.
These powers for Welsh Government were set out as part of the St David’s Day agreement and the Wales Act 2017. Unfortunately I was not here then, because I was on an enforced two-year sabbatical—the public had spoken—but I was here last year when the amounts for borrowing were increased from £500 million to £1 billion, which I welcome.
The order will enable Welsh Ministers to issue bonds for capital investment infrastructure, and it will come into force on 1 December, subject to its approval today. It is good to see that the relevant Treasury Ministers have already given that approval. For the first time, the Welsh Government will have the full suite of borrowing options at their disposal, which is an extremely important step towards ensuring that ambitious infrastructure plans can continue to be invested in and delivered on, even as capital budgets in Wales decline—they have declined massively since 2010. At a time of historically low interest rates, these additional borrowing powers are very timely.
As with all forms of borrowing, bonds must naturally be repaid, and will ultimately have an impact on the revenue available to the Welsh Government to fund day-to-day services. It is important to note that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mark Drakeford, has already stated in the Assembly that, in line with the Welsh Government’s approach to capital, they will always exhaust the least expensive forms of capital before using other sources of repayable capital.
The Welsh Government’s capital spending plans, as set out in their draft Budget 2019-20, which was published in October, are based on £250 million of capital borrowing over the next two years, so plans are already afoot, showing that the Welsh Government have been proactive and visionary in knowing that they would get the additional funding. That level of borrowing will help Welsh Labour to deliver the priorities set out in the Wales infrastructure investment plan midpoint review. I therefore welcome these measures.
Nigel Adams
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. The order delivers the commitment we made in the St David’s Day agreement, to enable the Welsh Government to issue bonds to borrow for capital expenditure. It ensures that the Welsh Government’s borrowing is flexible and sustainable. I am very pleased that we have the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition, and I hope I have answered the point raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr.
In assuming tax and borrowing powers, devolution in Wales has truly come of age, as the devolved institutions become responsible not only for how money is spent in Wales, but for how it is raised. Taken together, these fiscal powers provided by the Wales Act 2014 and the further powers devolved through the Wales Act 2017 place responsibility and accountability at the heart of the Welsh devolution settlement, and pave the way for the Assembly to become a fully-fledged Welsh Parliament. The order provides yet another tool to allow the Welsh Government to support the economy and the people in Wales, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Trade Barriers (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Barriers (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
This statutory instrument revokes the European Union’s trade barriers regulation, which sets out a process by which businesses, trade associations and member states can report trade barriers to the European Commission. If a request passes a particular threshold, the regulation obliges the Commission to make a report. It can then take appropriate action, such as raising it in bilateral discussion or at the World Trade Organisation, but it is not obliged to do so. It should be noted that this applies only to unlawful barriers outside the EU.
After we leave the EU, tackling trade barriers will become the UK’s own responsibility, and it is important that we get this right. Trade barriers cost our economy billions of pounds every year, so it is crucial that businesses can continue to report them after Brexit, but that only makes it more crucial that the system for reporting them works as effectively as possible. The current EU system has a number of issues: it is complex and time-consuming and, in practice, has already been superseded. Those issues cannot be resolved without making policy changes to the regulations, which would take them outside the scope of our powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The only course available to us in this circumstance is to revoke the regulation.
The Government have decided not to replicate the EU’s trade barriers regulation, but to use an alternative, non-statutory system instead. Why is that? First, the process in the regulation is drawn-out and complex. There are five steps: a complaint is submitted; the Commission has 45 days to decide whether to investigate; the Commission announces the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union; the Commission investigates; and a report is submitted to the trade barriers committee. Unsurprisingly, that process takes a long time, during which businesses could be losing exports, thanks to unfair rules. In addition, businesses are required to submit lengthy reports involving complex and often expensive economic and legal analysis. That is a barrier for any business, but particularly for small businesses. I will give an example. In the EU’s own evaluation of the regulation, one organisation said that it had wanted to bring a case but decided not to do so simply because of the amount of information that the Commission had requested—and that was only at the pre-initiation phase.
Secondly, the current process is superfluous. All the regulation does is commit the Commission to writing a report; there is no requirement for the Commission actually to take any action. Unsurprisingly, businesses are already voting with their feet. About 70 new barriers were reported to the EU last year. In only one case did the business involved choose to use the statutory process; the rest of the complaints were submitted informally. There is no evidence that the informal complaints were any less likely to be resolved than those submitted through the regulation. Therefore, in practice, the regulation has been almost entirely superseded. In fact, the process has been used only 28 times in the 25 years for which it has existed, and the majority of those cases were in the first three years. The number declined rapidly thereafter, which speaks volumes about the experience of the process for business. Only one case has been brought in the past 10 years.
Our new, non-statutory process will be an improvement. It will be accessible and user-friendly, with a simple online form at gov.uk for businesses to fill in. The process is already well under way and will be ready for 29 March. Because the process is non-statutory, it will also be flexible. Businesses will be able to tell the Government about the full range of barriers that they face, whether they breach the letter or the spirit of an international agreement. The Government will use the full range of tools available to tackle those barriers—tools ranging from economic diplomacy, to regulatory dialogues, to WTO dispute settlement and committees.
This will be a two-way process: as well as being easier for businesses to use, the new approach has been designed to let the Government better understand the barriers faced by businesses, so that we can target our resources more effectively. Much of this happens already. The Department for International Trade and its posts, our network overseas, are already extensively involved in that sort of activity. The new system is designed to improve on the existing network and formalise it.
We will of course provide reports to businesses and to Parliament, within the bounds of confidentiality. The Government will in due course be able to share information with businesses on where barriers exist or have been removed, to help inform business decisions.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The position of the Scottish National party is clear—we want to stay in the EU—but, having said that, we recognise that if we are to leave, having regulation is important. Will the Minister speak a little about how the devolved nations and the businesses there will be represented and resourced appropriately so that the interests of all parts of the UK will be properly represented?
George Hollingbery
Clearly, under the auspices of the draft regulations, we are looking at trade barriers. The Scottish Government have their own trade policy and trade exporting teams, and I have no doubt that they have a network overseas. Indeed, that network works closely with the UK network. There will therefore be avenues into this process for anyone from any devolved nation who wants to make a representation on any issue about a trade barrier. I hope that satisfies the hon. Lady.
Furthermore, we are expanding the market access team at the Department for International Trade to support that work. Our new Her Majesty’s trade commissioners overseas will spearhead and champion action on market access across our nine overseas regions. We are upgrading our capability to deal with market access barriers, including our IT infrastructure, better to enable collaboration and work not only within DIT and across posts but across all Departments, for which many trade barriers will be relevant.
As the UK delivers an independent trade policy for the first time in 40 years, the Department for International Trade is here to ensure that our businesses have as many exporting opportunities as possible. Part of that is to resolve trade barriers as effectively as possible. I am confident that the Government’s approach is the right one.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
What is the objective of the trade barrier system that we should have? Surely it must be to ensure that we have a robust system in place to support our businesses and workers as necessary and as they might expect. Given the new world order in which might is right, where protections and tariffs are rife and we verge on the prospect of very dangerous trade wars, it must be appropriate for UK businesses to expect the absolute best from their Government. What, therefore, have we been presented with?
At present, we are part of the European Commission trade barriers scheme, which operates as a statutory system. Businesses, trade associations and states may complain to the European Commission if they find evidence of a trade barrier in a non-EU state, as is currently the case with United States tariffs. After leaving the European Union, we will not be part of the TBR scheme—that much has been made clear by the Minister—and it will be replaced by a non-statutory system.
I am surprised that the Government did not automatically debate the issue in a Delegated Legislation Committee. Instead, it took the sifting committee to challenge the Government’s decision, and I am glad that it did so. When the Minister said that the system is drawn-out and complex, he rather let the cat out of the bag about how important it is for us to get it right and for Members of Parliament to be able to debate and scrutinise what is happening.
The sifting committee said that the House might wish to explore further with the Minister the Department’s plan for the new non-statutory reporting mechanism. Opposition Members certainly want to do so. As the explanatory memorandum notes, it is correct to say that other avenues are used for complaints to the Commission about trade barriers, but more trade barriers are being created in the new world order. In 2017, 70 new barriers affected EU businesses, and that number appears to be growing. It is true that of those 70 new barriers, only one was reported to the Commission, and the Government think that that proves that there is no need for a statutory system. The Government plan to replace the current system, but what is it about the new scheme that gives the Minister confidence that it will deliver what business needs?
If we examine the examples, we start to see a bit of a pattern. The Confederation of European Paper Industries lodged a complaint that measures imposed by Turkey on the imports of certain varieties of paper were inconsistent with both the WTO and the EU-Turkey customs arrangement rules. Turkey immediately withdrew the unfair measures because the possibility of action through the statutory system was enough. How does the Minister know that his new system will be as effective as the current one, without the back-up of either the Commission itself and the system it operates or a similar UK version? Previously, the threat of the procedure being used has been sufficient, as the paper industry example demonstrates. Did the Government consider that the reason the procedure is so rarely used is precisely that the threat alone is sufficient? Did the Minister consider that soft power is, in fact, extremely effective? Are the Government missing the point that the current system works very well indeed?
I also understand that a number of industry groups involving both UK businesses and those from the rest of the EU, including in ceramics, are at different levels of raising complaints through the existing trade barriers mechanism, so I put it to the Minister that the existing system is used more than might appear at first glance and, perhaps, more than he indicated in his opening remarks. Perhaps the Minister could advise those currently engaged in actions using the existing system as to whether they should continue their complaints using that system or switch to the UK’s new procedure.
The explanatory memorandum claims that there will be no impact on UK businesses. That seems unlikely, given that some may be involved in existing complaints and that others, including through relationships with other EU businesses, are likely to be in the future. I suggest that the Minister should confirm that the change in procedure will have an impact on UK businesses.
The Department has said that feedback on the effectiveness of the trade barriers regulatory system has been mixed? What does “mixed” mean? What was said in the informal consultation, and should there not be a more detailed consultation on the system that will be adopted? If the Minister wants to intervene to explain the rather quizzical look on his face, I will be delighted to give way. He is choosing not to. What is his plan is for the new system? Will it involve the Trade Remedies Authority? How might that work? If the Trade Remedies Authority is to be involved, does that mean that the Trade Bill is to reappear and conclude its remaining stages? It seems to have disappeared mysteriously into the ether.
The hon. Member for Livingston made the point about the nations and regions. We have debated that at length, and the lack of engagement with and involvement of the nations and regions was one of a number of our concerns about the Trade Remedies Authority. The hon. Lady made a good point about that and it applies in this case, too.
Hannah Bardell
I know there is support among Opposition Members for having officers for trade remedies, as we discussed in relation to the Trade Bill. Perhaps we could consider that alongside the issues under discussion. I hope we can work together to pursue that.
Bill Esterson
I certainly agree that the need for regional engagement and for the nations of the UK to be involved in addressing trade barriers is incredibly important—as it is for large and small individual businesses across the country.
What will the procedure be during the proposed transition period set out in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, in the unlikely event of the Prime Minister’s deal surviving? What will happen if, as seems inevitable, the deal is defeated? If, God forbid, there is no deal, what will happen then?
Paragraph 2.3 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“In the EU, the vast majority of trade barriers are raised via the Market Access Advisory Committee”.
Does the Minister propose to replace that committee, which is a non-statutory part of the current arrangements?
To move on to the Minister’s points about the digital service, there are great concerns among smaller firms, and the organisations that represent them, about the Government’s moving to the use of digital systems in a number of places in government. How will the use of the digital route ensure that smaller firms are not disadvantaged? That is of great concern to many small businesses. Should not the arrangement have been sorted out before the revocation of the existing legislation? I note that the Minister said it would be in place by the end of March. Will he confirm whether that digital system has been tested, whether there is awareness of it, particularly among smaller firms, and how he envisages greater access to and use of it by the smaller firms that might be interested in using it at some time in the future, if not today? That is a wider issue, but it is directly relevant.
Paragraph 10.5 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“Stakeholders from across sectors advocated a forum akin to the EU’s Market Access Advisory Committee in which industry associations and government departments can discuss avenues for resolution before initiating enforcement mechanisms.”
That relates to my earlier question, and I want to ask the Minister why it has not been developed yet—or has progress been made towards achieving such a mechanism?
The trade barrier regulation is only one area of the EU legislation that deals with dumping. The SI before the Committee is part of the process of revoking the EU legislation. What is happening to other pieces of EU legislation that deal with dumping? Specifically, what will happen to EU regulation 2016/1036 on protection against dumped imports, and EU regulation 2016/1037 on protection against subsidised imports?
To return to my main points, we have a system—the Minister made the point that there has been a decline in its use over 25 years—in which trade barriers have been addressed through our membership of the EU. It appears that there has not been an evidence-based approach to considering how effective that system has been, and whether something similar would work. May I suggest to the Minister that, rather than revoking the regulation, it might have been a good idea to make a greater effort to investigate whether the current system was effective and whether the fact that its statutory element was not used very often was a sign that it was working successfully, rather than the opposite? I need to hear from him how the alternatives that he proposes will deliver the same level of protection for UK businesses that we have seen under the current system.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I remember trying desperately, in our long years of opposition, to manufacture questions to ask from the Opposition Benches in Committees like this one. There was a strong sense of that today, but the shadow Minister did raise one interesting and important question about timing, on which it would be helpful to hear the Minister’s comments.
The Opposition spokesman said that he would like to know what will happen if we leave without an agreement. I do not actually find that situation puzzling, because I take it that if we leave without an agreement, the draft regulations will need to be revoked on exit day—they will be meaningless because we will no longer be part of the show and no longer have any connection with the Commission. I am more interested in the other side of his question.
What if there is a withdrawal agreement, either because the Prime Minister’s deal remains intact or because a variant deal is eventually agreed on, and we assume, from the current text of the withdrawal agreement, the existence of a transitional period? The significance of this point goes considerably wider than the draft regulations, but are the Government assuming that during the transition period—when we will be bound by all the rules of the single market, all the customs arrangements of the customs union and so forth—the Commission will not speak on behalf of UK businesses in relation to ongoing operational issues such as trade barriers? If that is the presumption, where is it specified in the withdrawal agreement? I read it as specifying the opposite.
Secondly, if during the transition period the Government are approached through the new digital and formal system, which sounds admirable in conception at least, will they co-operate with the Commission in taking forward these issues with foreign jurisdictions, given that we will still be part of all the arrangements, or will they act alone? If so, will they be given a locus by other jurisdictions, given that we are still bound to all the customs and single market operations during the transition period? I cannot say that that question is of the greatest possible importance with respect to the draft regulations, because I doubt that there will be many such cases, but it would be interesting to get an indication of how the Government are thinking about that relationship in general during the transition period. I am somewhat mystified about how it will operate.
George Hollingbery
I will start by addressing the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and by the shadow Minister. Given the rather complex circumstances, and to ensure that I get this right, I think it only wise for the Department to back up what I say by writing to the Committee. However, my understanding is that we need to pick between trade remedies and trade barriers. As far as trade remedies are concerned, we will be named as a co-sponsor or co-worker—whatever we call it—when any complaint is brought by the European Union during the implementation period. I will need my officials to write to the Committee to confirm that point absolutely, because I do not wish to mislead the Committee.
As far as trade barriers are concerned, I see no reason why we would need to work particularly with the EU on that front. We will have our own independent trade policy and we will be able to move forward and make the sorts of approaches that we need to make. We will have established our WTO schedules, both for goods and for services, and should therefore be in a position to make our own complaints on that basis. Indeed, we will absolutely be able to make our own representations to individual Governments and bilateral partners, as we do already.
I am not sufficiently confident in my answer about the trade remedies side to assert my righteousness today, but I will clear that up. On trade barriers, I believe that we will be able to carry on with our new regulations, or rather lack of regulation, under our non-statutory system. If I am incorrect about that point, I will make it clear in my note to the Committee.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on both trade remedies and trade barriers. He spoke about the confidence he has in our ability to lay our own schedules at the WTO. He will know, as will other Members, that there are countries that are suggesting that they may object. It only takes one country to do so. What sort of indications and discussions have been had in very recent times—in the last few days—that suggest that those objections have been removed? Without that, this would be very difficult to achieve.
George Hollingbery
I absolutely would not agree. We have laid our schedules at the WTO. The EU has been operating on uncertified schedules since 1995. It is in the midst of dealing with that non-certification, with up to 25 members, not 28. It is absolutely the case that, at the moment, the EU is operating on uncertified schedules.
We are quite clear that, from a WTO point of view, it is entirely proper for a nation to lay its schedules and then operate on them, and in the meantime negotiate with anybody who may have problems with those schedules. That is exactly what we are engaged in doing. The Secretary of State has talked about operating an article 28 procedure, in which the statutory route in WTO law is dealt with, and there is a very well understood path through which one then negotiates with bilateral partners on the objections they have to the schedules. That does not mean that a country cannot work at the WTO or have representation at the WTO on those schedules. They are there and they are laid.
I will answer one or two of the other questions asked by the hon. Member for Sefton Central. As I hope I have reasonably demonstrated in the debate, the current regulation is complex, inaccessible and, in particular, locks out small business. Is it a success? No, we can say absolutely without any question that it is not a success. There have been 70 complaints this year, despite the fact that there is a trade barrier regulation within the European Union. That demonstrates to me that there are still issues and barriers.
There is not this magical soft power idea that the hon. Gentleman suggests—that somehow because the trade barrier regulation exists, people are not contravening trade barriers. They plainly are: 70 complaints have had to be dealt with. We see plenty in the Department for International Trade from the UK point of view; I have been involved in several. I absolutely do not take his point that this is somehow a piece of soft power that prevents trade barriers arising.
Bill Esterson
It is important to clarify exactly what I said. I did not say that they were not arising; I said that they were resolved, without the need for recourse to the statutory part of the procedure. That is a very different point to the one the Minister appears to have answered. I accept that he may have misinterpreted my words, but that is not what I was saying.
George Hollingbery
Quite plainly, all I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that we deal with a great many of these issues outwith the UK and outwith the EU; we have issues with trade barriers with third-party countries that are nothing to do with the EU. They arise; we solve them. That says to me that the regulation is not required and, in fact, what exists at the moment is pretty much what we intend to do in the future. We intend to improve upon it, systematise it and make sure that there is an easily accessible route into it, and an easily accessible stream of information coming out of it to both small and large businesses, so that their business decisions can be informed by the information we have received and/or the information about what has been achieved in terms of getting rid of the trade barrier. I do not accept his contention at all. Dealing with such issues informally seems to work perfectly well for us already. I think it can work better, the Department thinks it can work better and we are progressing to make it work better.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the financial impact on UK businesses. To be absolutely clear, the explanatory memorandum attempts to estimate what the regulation would cost UK business, not what non-compliance is and how it operates and whether somebody is already complaining through it. In essence, if one is repealing a regulation, it is unlikely to put any particular cost directly on business because of the legislation.
We consulted widely with stakeholders who have engaged with us on trade barrier issues. There was no great enthusiasm among them for retaining the regulation. One of our correspondents said that they had used it in the past and it had worked for them, but my experience of this user is that they use the non-statutory route far, far more often and had not used this route in a long time. They seem to us to be sanguine about the fact that we chose to do this through a non-statutory route and improved the way that we were doing it.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the TRA might do in this regard, to take over the TBR regulatory powers. The answer is that the Trade Remedies Authority is there to deal with trade remedies and not trade barriers. It is there to deal with subsidies, dumping and safeguarding. Likewise, he asked about the progress of statutory instruments that are required on subsidies, dumping and safeguarding, which are clearly to do with the Trade Remedies Authority, rather than trade barriers. They will come to the House in due course.
Regarding the non-statutory route that we currently operate, we have extremely good relationships with business about the way we represent them overseas, in all theatres and on all issues. In the admittedly short time that I have been in post, I have found nothing but praise for our network overseas and how it represents businesses. Every time I meet with businesses out in the field, they say to me that they have excellent relationships with the staff on the ground in different countries and that if they raise an issue about trade barriers, it is dealt with. Of course, it is not always solved, but out in post and indeed here in London, in DIT, we follow up every one of those issues. We address the third-party country, we attempt to resolve the issues, and in rare cases where we do not manage to solve the issue, we take further action. Currently, that is done through the Commission, but later it will be through our own seat at the WTO.
The hon. Gentleman asked about industry associations and an appetite for feeding into Government on this issue. We believe there is a case for consulting with industry. Clearly, it would be strange if we did not, particularly in steel and ceramics where there are lots of issues to be dealt with. There are a lot of resources across Government, where forums already exist, and we are looking at using those more as a Department. As yet, how we will do that is undefined and not scoped, but we recognise that there is a resource there and the appetite of industry to contribute.
There is a narrow point to make on the devolved authorities, which will have access to the Department for International Trade’s database on all of these ongoing issues and all the actions that are being taken to try to resolve all the potential barriers.
I promise to write to the Committee to clarify the position on what we will do with trade remedies and trade barriers post-exit, but before the end of the implementation period.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Barriers (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 27th November 2018
(6 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 View all Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 November 2018 - (27 Nov 2018)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few housekeeping notes. I ask hon. Members to switch their phones and other electronic devices to silent mode, and remind them that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion to allow the reporting of written evidence for publication, and then a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope that we can deal with those matters formally, without debate. The programme motion was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill. Date Time Witness Tuesday 27 November Until no later than 10.25am Academy of Medical Royal Colleges; British Medical Association Tuesday 27 November Until no later than 10.55 am Association of British Insurers Tuesday 27 November Until no later than 11.25 am Kidney Care UK
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 27 November) meet—
(a) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 29 November;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 December.
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 4 December. —(Stephen Hammond.)
The Chair
The deadline for amendments to be considered at the first line-by-line sitting of the Committee was Monday 26 November and therefore has passed. The deadline for amendments to be considered on the second day of line-by-line consideration of the Bill is the rise of the House on Thursday.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Stephen Hammond.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Stephen Hammond.)
The Chair
Q
I remind hon. Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee agreed for this session. We have until 10.25 am. I hope, because the Minister has to be on his feet on the Floor of the House immediately after this, to cut a couple of minutes off the session to enable him to carry out his duties.
Are there any relevant interests to declare? No. Will the witnesses introduce themselves?
Mr Henderson: Thank you. I am Alastair Henderson, the chief executive of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which is the umbrella body for all the different medical royal colleges and faculties in the UK and Ireland. We represent the range of specialties, particularly on training, education and standards matters.
Raj Jethwa: I am Raj Jethwa, director of policy at the British Medical Association, which is the trade union and professional association for doctors in the UK.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
Q
Mr Henderson: Yes, certainly. I think that the feeling of clinicians and health organisations, and also of patients, is that the current regulations work well because they are simple, well understood, easy to operate and pretty well universal in their coverage. We have a good system at the moment that is effective and easy to operate, and going forward we are looking for something that repeats or replicates that as closely as possible.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Mr Henderson: Yes, I do; we are pleased to see that. I suppose our position is that, overall, the best and easiest thing would probably be for reciprocal healthcare agreements to be covered in an overall agreement. That seems to me to be the best thing. If we are not in the position of having an overall agreement, the Bill, which puts in these complementary arrangements, seems to be exactly the right thing. We are very supportive of it and are pleased to see that there.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Mr Henderson: In terms of the overall cost, that may well be the position. It is not known what the arrangements for cost recovery would be. Both clinicians and health organisations are concerned that we could end up with a system that is both administration-intensive and time-intensive. If all people in this country from the European Union or European economic area have to be charged, what would be the implications for NHS organisations and clinicians?
It is important to say that doctors have had a consistent anxiety about becoming involved in being responsible for either immigration rules or charging rules, which would potentially have a quite adverse effect on the doctor-patient relationship. I think it is really important that whatever arrangements come in are as seamless and as simple as possible, so that they do not take people away from clinical duties or get in the way of delivering care.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Mr Jethwa, good morning. I noticed in your written brief that the BMA stated that the Government should undertake every effort to retain the current model of reciprocal healthcare. My first question is the same as that to Mr Henderson: can you state why you think the current system works so well?
Raj Jethwa: For exactly the same reasons my colleague sets out: the arrangements are wide-ranging, secure and simple. They give security and clarity and are well established. Our view is that the best possible arrangement is for those arrangements to continue. If they cannot, the arrangements that come in their place should mirror them as far as possible.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Raj Jethwa: We largely welcome the Bill for exactly the intention behind it, but because the detail in it is limited we have some concerns about exactly the clarity going forward that the Bill allows for. We support the broad intentions behind the Bill, but we would like to see more detail about exactly how the arrangements will operate in practice, particularly the scrutiny arrangements to ensure there is clarity and transparency in what the arrangements negotiated and facilitated through the Bill would look like.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Raj Jethwa: No, I beg your pardon. We do have concerns about security, but I meant clarity, from the perspective of patients understanding and being secure in themselves about what the arrangements would mean.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q
Mr Henderson: I do not pretend to be an expert on the cost recovery system. I think our members would be very clear that they believe the primary effectiveness of the current arrangements is about providing effective healthcare for citizens across the EU. As clinicians, that is their primary responsibility.
On the recovery of costs, not just in this area but for other areas where recoverable costs were brought in more recently, there are always questions about the amount of effort and return in the whole system. I am not at all opposed to the idea of recovery of costs, but I am not sure we have yet found a hugely simple and easy way of recovering any costs really. I would happily support that, but it seems to us that this works as a system on its most important requirement, which is providing quick, clear and safe healthcare for people.
Justin Madders
Q
Mr Henderson: It is not a hugely attractive prospect, is it, 32 different settings, for those presumably trying to agree the arrangements? In practical terms, the idea that if you are a GP or a hospital doctor trying to work out whether there are different arrangements for 32 different lots of patients sounds pretty much like a nightmare set-up. What clinicians on the ground want is a clear and simple system—ideally a single system—that will cover all the people they are seeing.
Justin Madders
Q
Raj Jethwa: We have done some work on that.
Justin Madders
Would you like to say what you are doing?
Raj Jethwa: Our concern about the situation there is primarily based on the fact that there are some very effective cross-border agreements which have facilitated healthcare over the last two or three decades, particularly through co-operation and working together as a programme. That is only one aspect of it. Given the population demands on the whole island of Ireland, both in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, there have been some fantastic examples of where clinicians have either co-located services in a particular trust or facility where there is not the demand from the local population to warrant it, or travelled across the border to work on different sites. Those two facets together have meant that there have been some great examples of cross-border co-operation. One of our concerns is that those arrangements remain in place in the future.
Justin Madders
Q
Raj Jethwa: That is something that we can write to the Committee about afterwards. We have been talking to our members about this situation. Our anticipation—our hope—is that an arrangement will remain in place whereby that work can continue.
Justin Madders
Q
Raj Jethwa: We are familiar with the research that the Nuffield Trust has done on this, as most people are. Our members are very cognisant of this. I know the Committee will be familiar with the figure of approximately 190,000 UK pensioners who may require access to healthcare facilities in the future if the S1 arrangements do not remain in place. We have concerns about that. In particular, if the arrangements do not remain in place in the future, those people may need to access healthcare facilities back in the United Kingdom. That would be a concern in terms of doctor and clinician numbers and beds, and the tight financial resources that the NHS has to work under at the moment.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
Q
Mr Henderson: As Raj says, this is an enabling Bill, so it is slightly hard to say whether there is sufficient protection there or not. Clearly, it is a hugely important issue that needs to be fully addressed. Equally, we would say very strongly that, while individual patients’ data must be protected, the free flow of data and exchange of information are absolutely crucial. We should never forget that side of the equation: properly and safely sharing anonymised data for research purposes, clinical trials and so on is crucial. While it is absolutely essential that we ensure that personal data is protected, I would put more emphasis on that other side, which is ensuring that we continue to share and benefit from the exchange of anonymised data for purposes that benefit the health service and research.
Julie Cooper
Q
Raj Jethwa: It is important that an agreement can allow a seamless operation, but there are some well-established ethical principles and safeguards in relation to this. First, it has to be relevant data and it has to be accessed on a need-to-know basis, and only when it is in line with patients’ expectations. Data sharing has to be transparent. We would be absolutely concerned that any safeguards meet those criteria and principles. I do not think the details in the Bill make that clear at the moment. We would like to see more clarity and detail about that in future.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Q
Raj Jethwa: We would like to see much more emphasis on scrutiny of all the discussions in the arrangements going forward. There are some negative procedures—I think that is the term. Given the weight of the issue and the number of people that could be affected by it—I have mentioned the 190,000 UK pensioners who live abroad at the moment, but there are close to 3 million people from the European Union who access healthcare in this country, and there are many more than that who travel across the European Union at the moment—there probably needs to be greater scrutiny of any arrangements going forward.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Q
Mr Henderson: I am not actually sure I have all the detail. My understanding is that the European health insurance card and such arrangements work for all emergency situations, certainly, and most normal circumstances. I think, and Raj may know better than I, that there are some areas that are not covered particularly, but as I understand it, it is fairly universal. I am not an absolute expert in that, I am afraid.
Raj Jethwa: We can write to the Committee. My opinion is that it is pretty universal. There are probably niche areas that may not be covered. We can look into that and get back to the Committee if that would be helpful.
Justin Madders
Q
Raj Jethwa: I do not know that, but again we are happy to look into that and to come back to you if we find out that somebody back home does know the answer. I am not sure that I know.
Mr Henderson: It is probably lost in the mists of various previous agreements.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Raj Jethwa: One of the concerns we have is the reference to the authorised person and who could fit into that category. Without seeing more detail about what the arrangements will look like in the future, we do have some concerns and we are seeking that level of understanding. Without seeing that and knowing exactly what process will be used to, for example, recoup the money or make payments, it is hard to know exactly what those arrangements would look like and on what basis information would be shared. We do have concerns about the authorised person aspect of the Bill, and we need to ensure that we have greater understanding about exactly who would be an authorised person, beyond that list of specific bodies and individuals who are named in the Bill at the moment.
The Chair
Does the Committee have any more questions? No. I thank the witnesses for helping the Committee with its deliberations, and call the next witness.
Examination of Witness
Alisa Dolgova gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Alisa Dolgova: Hi. I am Alisa Dolgova. I am the manager looking after Brexit at the Association of British Insurers. We are a membership organisation representing more than 250 insurance and long-term savings firms in the UK, ranging across general, life and reinsurance companies.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Alisa Dolgova: I agree with those who gave evidence before me, in that the advantage of the EHIC is that it is a simple, easy-to-understand system. From an insurance perspective, the EHIC covers the medical treatment of UK nationals travelling through one of the covered countries, in the same way as local nationals would be covered in terms of state provision of healthcare. The insurance then covers anything that is not covered by EHIC, meaning things that are not covered by the state healthcare system—some countries have a greater tradition of state healthcare than others—but also things such as repatriation. The advantage of the current system continuing for customers is mainly that it is a system that is well understood, and there is a minimum that is covered for everybody, irrespective of whether they have travel insurance.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Alisa Dolgova: If EHIC were not in place, those costs would be covered by the person’s travel insurance, if they have insurance in place. That means that costs that are currently covered by EHIC would be borne by the insurer. I think £156 million is currently covered by EHIC, so part of that would be covered by the insurer, and that would have an impact on the claims costs for insurance companies—costs that currently are not there. That might have an impact on the premiums that insurers charge their customers.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Alisa Dolgova: That is difficult. Insurers do not know what the impact is going to be, because currently they do not have the data on where the policyholders travel to. By far the most common type of travel policy that is bought in the market is a multi-year insurance policy, which covers an individual who can travel anywhere in the EU—or the rest of the world, for that matter. Currently, because part of that is covered by EHIC, insurers do not have the breakdown, and it is therefore difficult to give a number for what might happen.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Alisa Dolgova: Generally speaking, premiums will be higher for two reasons: first, if the chance of the person claiming is higher, and secondly, if the volume of payout is likely to be higher—so, if someone has a condition that is particularly expensive to treat. That is why health is one of the risk factors that may increase premiums. Again, it is quite difficult to say what the difference in the potential increase would be between those who have existing conditions and those who are in good health, because it basically depends on where that group of people is likely to travel to, in terms of how expensive healthcare is in that country. For example, if someone travels to the US, that is a lot more expensive than if they were to travel to some other destinations. I would just say that if you look at countries where you do not have EHIC or reciprocal arrangements, insurance policies are available but it may require a bit more effort to locate the right product for the right individual. We are working with the Financial Conduct Authority, Macmillan and other organisations on that.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Alisa Dolgova: Most private medical insurance policies in the UK are generally designed to cover treatment within the UK. It is relatively rare for the policies to also cover healthcare while you are travelling.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Alisa Dolgova: Yes. It may vary depending on the type of policy, but generally speaking that is the most common situation.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Alisa Dolgova: For health insurance?
Stephen Hammond
Yes, for health specifically.
Alisa Dolgova: The implications for health insurance are a lot less than for travel insurance. Apart from that, health insurance would primarily be affected in the same way as any other insurance in terms of transferring data across borders. I am not sure there is likely to be a significant impact on health insurance if the reciprocal healthcare arrangements are not in place.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Alisa Dolgova: We are supportive of the Bill and giving the Government the powers they need to implement reciprocal healthcare arrangements. From the insurers’ perspective, the most important thing for us is to know as early as possible, whatever the outcome, so that insurers can plan for any changes and so that we can let our customers know what the impact is likely to be.
Stephen Hammond
So, the sooner the Bill gets Royal Assent, the happier you will be.
Justin Madders
Q
Alisa Dolgova: My colleague Hugh Savill gave evidence to the House of Lords, where he stated that there is likely to be an increase of between 10% and 20%. To be honest, we do not really know, because it very much depends on the particular insurer, who it insures and where that specific group of people travels to.
Justin Madders
Q
Alisa Dolgova: The main message that insurers are giving to the customers is that it has always been important to have travel insurance because it covers things that EHIC does not, but it will be even more important to have it in case there is not a transitional period, because travellers would no longer have the benefit of EHIC. The message is that you need to have travel insurance in place, and that travel insurance will cover you, irrespective of whether you have EHIC.
Justin Madders
Q
Alisa Dolgova: We have not currently seen an increase in premiums. Firms are currently pricing in the assumption that there will be a withdrawal agreement in place with a transitional period that will allow more time for the Government to enter into a reciprocal healthcare arrangement.
Justin Madders
Q
Alisa Dolgova: I have briefly alluded to the work that we have been doing with the Financial Conduct Authority. The FCA published a feedback statement in June this year, looking at travel for people with pre-existing conditions. The finding was that there are products available on the market but they may be difficult to locate at the moment, which is why we are doing additional work at the moment. So there are products available that will cover people.
Justin Madders
Q
Alisa Dolgova: I do not have information with me about which types of conditions are more expensive than others, but it will be the types of conditions that are more likely to require treatment while you are travelling, and insurers do take factors into account such as, “What has been your recovery time?”
Justin Madders
Q
Alisa Dolgova: Yes, sure. EHIC covers you for public healthcare in the same way as a person from that country would be covered, and healthcare provision differs a lot, depending on which EU country you are in. Some countries, such as Italy, have healthcare systems that are much closer to the NHS than others, and if you travel there, EHIC will give you greater coverage. Some countries, such as Spain, have a mixed public/private system and some countries, such as Germany, have a greater tradition of private healthcare. Actually, that means the degree you are covered by EHIC varies depending on where you travel and that is why you need insurance.
Justin Madders
Q
Alisa Dolgova: Yes. It will give you more coverage across all countries, but what that coverage is depends on what the situation is in that country.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Q
Alisa Dolgova: It depends on the specific terms of the travel insurance policy that you have. For example, some policies have a specific provision that you need to use EHIC first and then have resort to your insurance policy, and insurers may also provide incentives to use EHIC as well. For example, they might provide a waiver for access costs of EHIC; that has been used.
Alberto Costa
Q
Alisa Dolgova: The claims cost will definitely increase, which may lead to an increase in travel insurance costs as well.
Matt Western
Q
Alisa Dolgova: Sorry, your question is who would pick up the cost if treatment were provided overseas, but it fails?
Matt Western
Yes. If that implant failed, whatever it might be, and the cost to revise that implant were then borne by the NHS, who picks up the cost, and how does that work? How does it work currently, and how might it work in the future based on this?
Alisa Dolgova: I am not sure I have a detailed enough answer to give at the moment. I would be happy to come back to the Committee on that, but again, I think it would ultimately depend on exactly what travel insurance policy is in place. I would assume that the travel insurance policy is likely to cover a person for the treatment they receive overseas, and if they then need additional medical treatment back in the UK, they would be treated within the UK healthcare system in the same way as they are currently.
The Chair
Are there any more questions from members of the Committee? If not, I thank you very much for helping the Committee with its deliberations on this Bill, and I call the next witness.
Examination of Witness
Fiona Loud gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Fiona Loud: My name is Fiona Loud, and I am the policy director for Kidney Care UK. We have been around for over 40 years and were formerly known as the British Kidney Patient Association. We are the national kidney patient support charity, so we give emotional, financial and practical help to patients and their families who are affected by kidney disease, but particularly kidney failure.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Fiona Loud: At the moment, 29,000 people in the UK are dependent on dialysis. That is three times a week, about five hours at a time, and those people cannot miss a session, because those sessions maintain their life. If a person is on dialysis and wishes to travel—anywhere in the world, but let us talk about the EU here—whether to meet family, to have a holiday, or to work, they need to be able to pre-book a slot or slots at a dialysis unit that is convenient to the place they are travelling to. At the moment, the EHIC card either covers it completely or, in countries where there is a co-payment because local residents make a co-payment, it covers the bulk of your care. Many patients tend to go to places such as Spain and France, and some go to Italy, because they are holiday-type destinations. It works for them because they get the EHIC, are able to get their life-maintaining treatment and have the opportunity, for themselves and their families, for a much-needed break. That is an example of one of the main reasons people might use that.
So it works well at the moment. It is not completely perfect because sometimes units that were public become private and it may occasionally happen that someone has booked a holiday a long way in advance. But, in general terms, it means that people are able to go away with the confidence that they will be able to be supported and receive the treatment they need.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Fiona Loud: For people with a pre-existing condition, such as kidney failure, we always advise that they take out insurance in addition to having a current EHIC card, because there will be situations in which they may need to cancel their travel at very short notice due to illness. What we regularly hear from patients—this is probably one of the most common questions asked on our closed social media forums, especially at holiday time—is, “Where do I book? Where do I get insurance from? Where do I get the best deal?” My understanding is that some people go to specialist insurers to get their cover—they will be those that we tend to recommend to people because they are much more likely to understand and to be able to support these complex conditions. Whether everyone gets insurance, I honestly do not know. Some people will say that it is so expensive that they cannot afford it, and that could put them off travelling. Other people will say that they have incredibly cheap deals, and I do wonder whether those would actually cover the situation of someone really needing care.
Let me give you a recent example of someone who booked a holiday a year in advance, not in the EU but further away. They took out specialist travel insurance and during that time their transplant failed, which meant that they became dependent on dialysis, were particular ill and had to cancel the holiday for them and all their family. They were able to get all their money back because they had given a clear declaration and that had been accepted. That is how it should work, and it was some comfort to them in what was not a very good situation.
We have people who are taking the option to travel now because they have no idea what will happen after 29 March. For them, the ability to travel with confidence—I think there is something in the Bill about people being able to travel with confidence—is something they can do now, and they are not confident yet that they will be able to do that after 29 March.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Fiona Loud: We understand the reason for it and we support its intentions. You may have seen some of our comments: we want more assurance, some more detail and some things about contingency as well but, yes, we have been hoping for some time that something could be put in place to set this process in motion.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Fiona Loud: The contingency issues would be for people who have holidays already booked for after 29 March. There are people who have already done that and, because their EHIC card has a date of after 29 March—the cards will go on for many years afterwards, as we all know; they are issued for five or 10-year chunks—they imagine that they can go away and receive their dialysis. What happens in the case of no deal, where holidays are booked on that presumption? Will there be cover?
The second question will be about emergency cover. I have just given an example of somebody who was fine when they booked the holiday but who now may not be fine, because people’s health state can change. Generally speaking, holidays are booked in advance. It is basically about looking at what the immediate arrangements would be and to make sure that no citizens are caught in the gap of assuming they have cover and somehow not realising that things have changed. There is an awful lot about Brexit at the moment and this is a very specific detail in a much noisier environment. Those are the people who might be caught out and whom we are concerned about.
Stephen Hammond
Q
Fiona Loud: Yes, it is our conclusion that it would be very hard. It is worth mentioning that at the moment it is generally easier to obtain dialysis at a unit away from your home in Europe than it is in the UK, because we have a heavily pressed NHS. Trying to get capacity in other units is possible with a lot of planning, but if you want to travel for a funeral or for something at short notice, it becomes very difficult to go away for more than one or two days in between dialysis sessions. NHS staff will help and do their very best, but it is easier to go away for two weeks in Europe and take a break in that way than it is to get two weeks in a UK unit, unfortunately.
Justin Madders
Q
Fiona Loud: I have heard it as a comment.
Justin Madders
Q
Fiona Loud: I have not come across any publicly available guidance on that at all. We have given advice and organisations that we work with give advice, but it is informal advice. It is not formal, because it comes from us as a charity, not from any public health or other such body.
Justin Madders
Q
Fiona Loud: That is what many people would do, for the very reasons we have given. We have people who are sometimes thinking about two years in advance. If you have kidney failure, it may well be that your income is quite limited. If you are spending three days a week in hospital and you are not particularly well, you would be likely to plan a long way in advance, because it is so important. As a charity, we give grants to kidney patients to be able to go away and have that break, so we hear quite a lot about it from various patients. Some can be up to two years in advance; others will be at shorter notice.
Julie Cooper
Q
Fiona Loud: Although we completely understand the need to be able to have the latitude to make bilateral arrangements for everyone’s benefit, from a patient point of view we would like to see a simple arrangement that is the same across all countries. People will not be sitting in these Committees or reading these Bills in great detail. They simply want to be able to go away. They know how a system works at the moment: they will perhaps turn to somebody in their own NHS unit, or they will turn to us or to other specialists, and ask, “How do I go ahead and book my holiday?” and they will assume that, because they have that card, that is how it will be. That would be our wish and our preference, but we understand that that is not always possible.
If I may make a separate comment about Northern Ireland, there are potential issues there that are nothing to do with holiday but are simply about residents who are used to going across the border day to day for their care and treatments. There are pre-existing arrangements and protocols there. For example, somebody might be on dialysis in Northern Ireland but, because the rest of their family live in Ireland—it is only 10 or 15 miles away—they might be planning to retire there in a year or two and assume that they can just carry on having their dialysis there.
The provision exists for people who live in Northern Ireland to be listed on the Irish organ donor register—you can only be on one—and vice versa. They will need to look at where they are registered. Does that change immediately? There are also other arrangements for organ sharing. If an organ is donated in one of those two jurisdictions and the weather is too bad to take it to the mainland, it can be taken across by road. That is not used very often, but those are just a couple of examples of some of the detail that might affect people. That is to do with healthcare but it is also separate. There may, therefore, need to be some other bilateral arrangement for Northern Ireland, which is separate from the more general one that we have just discussed.
Julie Cooper
Q
Fiona Loud: We are. A dialysis session in the EU would cost between €250 and €350, so that is about €1,000 a week. We have had correspondence with Sabine Weyand, who is the deputy chief negotiator for exiting the EU. She confirmed to us that British nationals would be treated as third-country nationals, in the case of no negotiation being in place. Therefore, our conclusion is that for third-country nationals, those costs that I have just referred to would be applied. Therefore, only people who were able to afford that, alongside a higher insurance policy—which would not cover the dialysis, though it would cover other things—would be able to travel, effectively making it out of reach for most patients, unfortunately.
The Chair
Are there any more questions from the Committee? If not, I thank you very much for helping us with our deliberations today. That concludes our oral evidence-gathering for the Bill. The Committee will meet again on Thursday 29 November at 11.30 am in Room 12, when we will commence line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Wendy Morton.)
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 27th November 2018
(6 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 November 2018 - (27 Nov 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
‘(8) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the motor vehicle industry in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(9) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office of National Statistics.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of clause 7 on the automotive industry, broken down by nations and regions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 18, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
‘(8) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the availability and uptake of optional remuneration arrangements relating to cars and vans and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of Clause 7 on the uptake of optional remuneration schemes relating to cars and vans.
Amendment 19, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
‘(8) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on tax receipts and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of Clause 7.
Amendment 22, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
‘(8) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the vehicle hire sector and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.’
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of clause 7 on the UK vehicle rental sector.
Clause stand part.
Peter Dowd
I hope everybody had a refreshing lunch and that not too much claret was drunk.
Peter Dowd
That is a nice start to the afternoon. I will turn to amendment 17 to 19 and 22 which, I must say at this stage, we will also push to a vote unless we have the acquiescence, capitulation or otherwise of the Minister after he has heard my words of wisdom. I hope he has even more divine intervention and inspiration this afternoon from his officials telling him to agree with me.
Clause 7 introduces further reforms to optional remuneration arrangements for cars and vans. The measure seeks to make two changes to the current regime, as outlined in the Treasury’s policy paper. First, it is designed to
“ensure that when a taxable car or van is provided through OpRA, the amount foregone, which is taken into account in working out the amount reportable for tax and National Insurance contributions purposes, includes costs connected with the car or van (such as insurance) which are regarded as part of the benefit in kind under normal rules”.
Secondly, this measure is also expected to
“adjust the value of any capital contribution towards a taxable car when the car is made available for only part of the tax year.”
I imagine that the Treasury’s line is that this seeks to ensure that the value of this benefit is connected only to cost, but we are concerned that these changes may further complicate pre-existing optional remuneration arrangements that are already in place for employers and employees to utilise company cars and vans. That in turn may be a deterrent, as some employers may consider that it is too much hassle or too bothersome, and that there is too much red tape, when it comes to offering such a scheme. Similarly, employees may decide that the risks and liabilities of taking up the offer of a company car or van scheme may be too high, and that under these circumstances both rentals and automotive sales may fall.
To put it as succinctly as I can—I accept that I am prone to being succinct, which is a fault of mine—the Opposition do not believe that it is in the interest of our economy, which is heavily reliant on the automotive sector for jobs, or that of workers, to make it harder for them to use a company car or van through an optional remuneration scheme. That is why we have tabled amendment 17, which would amend page 5, line 2 of the Bill and insert:
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the motor vehicle industry in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act”
as linked to the nations.
I accept that Government Members must recognise the clear link between automotive sales and their use as company cars or vans in optional remuneration arrangements. Work vehicles make a significant contribution to the automotive industry’s more than £82 billion annual turnover and £20.2 billion of value added.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that further complicating the optional remuneration arrangements for employees who wish to use a company car or van could have an effect on the automotive sector as a whole? That would be terrible.
Peter Dowd
It would be. That goes to the heart of the point. We want to tease this issue out and have a review. I know we have raised a million and one issues for review, but that is as much as we can do in the current climate. That is what we want to do: we want to tease all these matters out.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a review would enable us to tease out some of the matters that were presented to us and to explore some of the expert information that has been provided to us? For example, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales tax faculty said that the clause will lead to a tax charge so, for example, emergency repairs will be initially paid for or arranged by an employee and then met by the employer. If we had a review, we could look into that matter and others in more detail.
Peter Dowd
That organisation is always helpful, and it points us in the direction that the Government should go in. That goes to the point I am making.
Many proposals have come back to bite us, so we need a proper review to see how they are bedding in. For example, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the automotive industry employs 168,000 people directly in manufacturing, and more than 856,000 are employed across the wider industry. It accounts for 12% of total UK exports of goods, and invests £3.65 billion each year in automotive research and development. More than 30 manufacturers build in excess of 70 models of vehicle in the UK, supported by 2,500 component providers and some of the world’s most skilled engineers. The automotive industry represents 1% of all employment in the UK and 7% of all manufacturing. It is also one of the few industries in the United Kingdom that has had a huge productivity increase since the financial crisis. The manufacturing of motor vehicles went from 5.4% of UK manufacturing in 2007 to 8.1% in 2017. Those figures do not, however, reflect the role that the automotive industry play in communities across the nations and regions of the UK, and the impact that a fall in sales or rentals relating to optional remuneration might have.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech in support of the communities around the country that are reliant on motor manufacturing, which include Tyne and Wear, Derby, Swindon and Merseyside. Does he think that the Government should undertake and publish a proper impact assessment on the communities that will be affected by the changes outlined?
Peter Dowd
Yes. That links to others issues. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) is having issues with the car factory in his constituency, where 200 jobs are threatened. These issues are all linked. When the industry is under threat, or there is a potential threat, even if it is not actually visible, we must take steps to ensure it does not appear on the horizon. Our proposal would help that process.
For example, the west midlands has by far the largest number of motor vehicle manufacturing employees of any UK region or country. There are 54,000 employees in the industry working in the west midlands. That is about one third of all motor industry employees in Great Britain. We have to take into account the fact that if fewer companies offer optional remuneration arrangements, that could directly affect jobs in that region. The Government’s job is to plan and—they said this in their industrial strategy—to ensure we are prepared for all eventualities. Our proposal helps with that preparation.
The second-largest region for automotive manufacturing is the north-west, where my constituency is located. It employs 24,000 people and accounts for 7% of the total industry and 1% of all employment. I recognise that a slowdown in automotive sales could be related to a fall in the use of company cars and vans, and could cost workers their jobs. Members from Scotland, where the automotive industry accounts for around 4,000 jobs and 2% of the total UK manufacturing sector, and Members from Wales, where the automotive industry accounts for 9,000 jobs, feel the same. Similarly, any fall in the sale of rental cars and vans used in optional remuneration arrangements will have an impact on foreign direct investment into the UK, as there are now no British-owned mass car manufacturers operating in the United Kingdom. It comes back to the point made by an hon. Member about foreign direct investment. We do not want to put it off.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Given the sounds being made by the car makers Nissan over Brexit uncertainty, it would be a most foolish approach if those safeguards were not taken, and if there were no proper impact assessment or analysis of the industry.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is right. To some extent, that is part of the concern we have had about impact assessments and financial reviews on industry generally in relation to Brexit. This is part of the tapestry or mosaic of issues that we always have to keep to the fore if we are to protect jobs. All parties have said that they want Brexit for jobs and the economy. We have said it time after time, and this completely fits in with our policy of trying to protect jobs and our economy. Let us look to the future of how this might impact on an important part of our industry, rather than leaving it to chance.
The domestic automotive market is home to foreign volume car manufacturers, with other companies specialising in commercial or luxury brands, including Honda, which has almost doubled production at the Swindon plant—£240 million of investment into the Burnaston site was announced in March 2017. Jaguar Land Rover invested £400 million in a new engine plant, equipment and the expansion of its design centre in 2015. In October 2016, Nissan announced that it would produce two new models in Sunderland. Members on both sides of the Committee understand that uncertainty in an industry such as the automotive industry, which plans 10 or 15 years in advance, can be disastrous and cost jobs. We need only to look at the current uncertainty around Brexit, as I have indicated, to see that this is clearly the case. Large automotive companies express concern on a daily basis. My colleague the hon. Member for Oxford East receives regular representations from companies in her area who are deeply concerned about the future of the industry in the UK, and any fall in use of company cars will not add further confidence.
I accept that Government Members may accuse me of scaremongering, but figures from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs showed that 940,000 employers paid benefits in kind—tax on a company car—in 2016-17. That was a 2% fall on the 960,000 recorded the previous financial year. The decline is not isolated—the number of company cars has decreased over the last 10 years.
Clive Lewis
As I sit here listening to my hon. Friend describe the obscure way in which this tax is being implemented, I wonder whether it would it be fair to call it a stealth tax.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. One could argue that it is a stealth tax, although I think what the Government have introduced is more like an incompetence tax. I am not sure they know the consequences of what they have unleashed, but I suspect my hon. Friend’s use of the term “stealth tax” is pretty apposite.
We all know that employers will have invested in vehicles in good faith on the basis of those calculations, together with the comment from HMRC that that was the correct way to calculate charges. It is therefore to be expected that they will feel let down and perhaps even blindsided by these changes. The more I think about it, the more I think they will consider what the Government are introducing as a bit of a stealth tax.
The ICAEW found that, where vehicles with allowed private use are provided to employees under OpRAs, the clause will impose unexpected increases in tax and national insurance charges on employees and employers respectively. The only way to avoid those charges will be for the employer to dispose of the vehicle. That is likely to result in the employer receiving lower than expected proceeds if the vehicle is owned outright, or suffering financial penalties if the vehicle was acquired under an ongoing contract. It may also upset the employer-employee relationship, which might ultimately lead to both employee and employer leaving the scheme entirely.
That concern led the Opposition to table amendment 18, which we will press to a vote. The amendment seeks to insert the following subsection:
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the availability and uptake of optional remuneration arrangements relating to cars and vans and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
In effect, it would require the Chancellor to publish a review of the impact of these changes on the number of employees choosing to enter into optional remuneration arrangements. The amendment goes to the heart of the Opposition’s concern that the Government’s constant tinkering and fiddling deters people from taking up such schemes and, no doubt, other schemes.
That feeds into the wider criticism of the Treasury—and Ministers, I have to say—as backed up by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, regarding the constant need to rework and reform measures. The perception is that this is happening all the time. That takes us back to the point raised by the Scottish National party’s spokesperson about the need to tease out these issues in advance and put them into the domain. Let us tease them out and try to get a little bit of sense out of the mix. This amendment goes to the heart of our concerns, and this tinkering and fiddling about just confuses things more.
It is telling that the changes have come about not because of a new onus to reform optional remuneration schemes for the benefit of employees and employers, but rather to clean up the mistakes made in the previous Finance Act. In practical terms, that is what has happened. The Opposition have consistently called for the Government to take a more considered approach to taxation, including the introduction of Public Bill Committee witness sessions, as mentioned both previously and today. Were these concerns and those of the tax experts and advisers who have to implement the change taken seriously, Ministers would not have to come back to the House to redo their homework on every Finance Bill. This is my fourth Finance Bill—excluding the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill—and that seems to be a regular occurrence. Instead, Ministers should be able to get it right first time, not just in relation to consultation but in enabling us to help them do their job.
The Chair
Order. You have made quite a few generalised remarks about consultation, Mr Dowd. It would be appreciated if you could keep your speech to the points of the amendment.
Peter Dowd
Thank you, Ms Dorries. The Minister considered the number of people who will be affected by the measure—1 million—to be rather small. The measure will have a disproportionate impact on van drivers and those who have company cars. The Treasury’s impact assessment shows that the majority are male and, no doubt, from various backgrounds. The Opposition want to get these changes right, which is why we are pushing for the Minister to report back to the House after six months and to offer clear evidence as to why they have had a negative impact on the number of employees able to use a company car or van under these schemes.
Given the lack of knowledge shown by small and medium-sized enterprise employers and employees when it comes to changes to optional remuneration schemes, it is hard to understand how the introduction of these measures will not incur additional expense for both. In fact, in its response to the consultation on the new measures, ICAEW found:
“The new clause introduces additional costs which will change the cost model on which the acquisition finance model was based.”
The Opposition therefore have a healthy scepticism for the Treasury’s figures on the revenue raised from these changes, because it is clear that there will be an additional cost.
In an effort to gain further clarity of the revenue effects of this measure, the Opposition have tabled amendment 19, which we will invoke later. The measures in clause 7 are part of the Minister’s clean-up operation to fully implement the wholesale reform of optional remuneration schemes introduced in the previous Bill. The reforms are aimed at targeting employers and employees who might use salary-sacrifice schemes for the purposes of tax avoidance. With that in mind, the review should consider the changes in the context of wider Government reform of optional remuneration schemes and include the impact of the changes to this specific scheme on the total revenue.
Turning to the vehicle rental sector, an increasing number of the company cars and vans offered by optional remuneration schemes are, in fact, rentals. That means that any changes to these schemes will have consequences for the vehicle rental sector. That is why we have tabled amendment 22, which would insert the following in line 2 of clause 7:
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the vehicle hire sector and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Many of the points that I was going to make have been covered by the hon. Member for Bootle. However, a few things require to be dwelt on for more time or should be looked at from a slightly different angle.
When I first became aware of the Opposition’s amendments, I did not think that it was a tack that they should take. However, when I looked into the information behind them and at the detail, I discovered that it is actually a very sensible tack to take, for a number of reasons. I note the comments about the 4,000 Scottish jobs that could be affected. It is important to note the number of jobs that could be affected by any changes to this area, particularly through tweaks to the benefit-in-kind system.
I also point out the number of new car registrations, which the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has on its website. There has been a 7.2% fall in the year to date, which is incredibly significant. If the Government are thinking about ensuring that companies have those up-to-date cars with the lowest emissions, it is really important that companies are incentivised to ensure that their employees drive an up-to-date fleet, rather than older cars.
The other thing to note is that registrations in October 2018 were at their lowest level since 2013, which is significant. We might expect low numbers when we were coming out of a recession, but there has been a significant drop in registrations over the past year. It is important that the Government think about this wider context when making these decisions.
It is particularly important to note the impact of these changes on the industry, given the context of Brexit and the concerns raised by the car industry. Now is not a good time to consider making changes that are likely to negatively impact the automotive industry, particularly given the nature of its supply chains, which are so integrated with European Union countries. There is the potential for those supply chains and those manufacturing businesses and jobs to move wholesale to the EU, rather than the integrated supply chains that we have now being maintained. It is important to note that wider context when making any changes, because the Bill will not act in isolation; it will have to operate in the context of whatever potential economic hit will come from Brexit.
On the ICAEW’s comments about the potential for an accidental charge following emergency repairs, I agree with the hon. Member for Bootle that the Government might need to amend the Bill further in order to make it workable, so that it does what they intend it to do. If we are not going to listen to the utmost experts on this issue, what is the point in having the consultation? If we are to have a consultation, it will be meaningful only if the Government listen and actually make the suggested changes. These people are the experts and negotiate the tax system on a daily basis, so they are the ones who can highlight potential problems.
To expand on that a little bit, I totally accept that protecting the Treasury is important in the changes being made, and that the Government are attempting to protect the Treasury from problems that it did not necessarily foresee when it created the Bill in the first place. However, there are changes to the Finance Bill every year. As the hon. Member for Bootle said, this is the fourth Finance Bill Committee that I have served on, and every year there seem to be different changes to benefit in kind issues. I understand that the Treasury is trying to protect itself, but if there is an immensely complex tax system and it is changed every year, it is difficult for people to comply with the legislation, even those who are trying to do so. I think that the Government need to think more carefully and do some sort of sensible review, as suggested by the Opposition, into the whole landscape of benefit in kind issues and then make changes in one go, so that they are easily understood and can be complied with them. As I said earlier, there is no point having a tax system if people do not understand it and cannot pay the tax because they do not understand how they are supposed to comply with the system.
That also has a knock-on effect on the automotive industry. If it is too difficult for employees to claim the relief that they are supposed to be able to claim, or to have the benefit in kind accepted as such, as they are supposed to, it means that fewer companies will be willing even to attempt to comply with the legislation. I think that it is really important, in terms of the new vehicles and ensuring that the Government can collect the correct tax.
In relation to whether or not this is a stealth tax, I would certainly say that there are stealth changes being made to these taxes, and not ones that have been widely publicised or understood well enough by individuals having to go through the system. If the only way to comply with tax changes is to ensure that you have a very good tax lawyer or tax adviser in place, then I would suggest that the system is a bit too confusing. It should be easier for people to jump through the hoops that are in place, and constant changes by the Government are not helping.
I will speak briefly to the proposed amendment. The explanatory notes, on pages 14 and 15, state that this was first proposed in the autumn statement 2016 and put through a technical consultation. The Government are having to make changes in relation to the anomalies that were raised. The Government decided to take action to protect the Exchequer at the first opportunity. Although this was consulted on, the Government did not see the potential pitfalls in the way they put forward the legislation. Therefore, either the consultation was deficient or the Government’s ability to listen to the consultation responses was deficient. There was certainly an issue with the process.
I am pleased that the Government have changed their ways—or have said that they will—about the number of Finance Bills we are going to have in any given year, especially as I have served on four Finance Bills since 2016, and I only avoided one in 2017 because a general election was called. That seems to me to be too many tax changes in any year, given that we still have all the changes happening on a significantly more than annual basis. I think the Government need to take a step back in some of these situations and have a much more wide-ranging look at the issues, particularly in relation to benefits in kind. Every single year there are changes in the benefits in kind legislation in the Finance Bill, which every year we have stood up and debated.
First, we need to look at the whole system of benefits in kind and then make decisions about the entire system that are easily understood by people. People are much more likely to comply if they can actually understand the legislation. If there are constant changes, that makes it is much more difficult for people to jump through the hoops they are supposed to jump through and to pay the correct tax that they are supposed to pay.
Secondly, in relation to the impact on the automotive industry, I am particularly pleased that the Labour party has put forward the amendment about the different regions and nations of the UK. It is really important that we consider the differential impact, not least in the context of Brexit. Areas where there is significantly more manufacturing, such as the north of England, are likely to be hardest hit by the economic shock resulting from Brexit. That is shown across the Whitehall analysis papers. If they are being hit by that, we do not want them to be hit by other things. Doing that analysis on a regional basis is really important.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Members for Bootle and for Aberdeen North for their contributions to the debate.
Clause 7 makes two changes to ensure that the optional remuneration arrangement—OpRA—rules for cars and vans work as intended. First, the clause addresses an anomaly in the OpRA legislation. Under current legislation, the value of any connected costs is not included when calculating the value of the amount foregone. That was not the original policy intention. It is important to note that we are not looking at new measures as such; we are looking at closing loopholes and ensuring that the original legislation passed in 2017 operates as intended. The clause ensures that the value of the amount forgone includes any costs connected with the taxable car or van, such as servicing and insurance. The clause also ensures that the value of the deduction available for a capital contribution is adjusted if a company car is made available for only part of the tax year. Again, that brings the original intention of the legislation into effect.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister said that an oversight was made in relation to the legislation as drafted. Does he share my concern that the Government should not be making oversights in tax legislation and agree that, in fact, the process we have for scrutinising tax legislation is therefore deficient?
Mel Stride
I certainly accept the hon. Lady’s contention that oversights are never acceptable—of course they are not. As I set out, there was significant consultation and scrutiny of both the policy measure and the detailed legislation. Unfortunately, on this occasion the two issues being highlighted here did not come to the appropriate attention in the drafting of the 2017 legislation. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen North is saying that there was insufficient scrutiny, I do not believe that was the case, given the large amount of scrutiny applied in this circumstance.
The changes are expected to affect a small proportion of the 1 million or so individuals who are provided with a company car or van for private use. The average cost of the changes for those affected has been estimated at between £120 and £140 a year in extra tax. There will also be a slight increase in national insurance contributions for employers, in line with the original policy intent. The Exchequer yield from the changes is estimated to be negligible, but by stopping the growth of separate arrangements, significant amounts could be protected.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon suggested that the issue of emergency repairs needed to be looked at in greater detail. That is already covered by the legislation. As the explanatory notes state, the clause
“does not affect the operation of sections 239(1) and (2) in relation to other payments or benefits. For example, should an employer reimburse an employee for costs incurred (such as replacing a tyre), the exemption in section 239(2) will still apply.”
HMRC will also ensure that that is reflected clearly in the guidance.
Peter Dowd
I want to bring some of the points I raised to the attention of the Minister again. He talked about consultation. Let us not take the totality of the automotive industry, because it is a big industry. What about Arval, which is a leasing company? Did the Government think, “We are going to make changes to leasing and rental arrangements, so let’s consult those companies directly affected”? Were any of those companies, many of which are quite big businesses, consulted on the measures?
Mel Stride
As I said, there were 259 written responses from employers, tax professionals and representative bodies, 77 from individuals, and 18 meetings with a wide range of employers, tax professionals and representative bodies, including two with the ICAEW. Officials had face-to-face meetings with more than 100 employers. There was pretty extensive engagement. The Government are constantly liaising very closely with industry. I know that the Exchequer Secretary recently met, for example, the chief executives of Vauxhall and Jaguar Land Rover in Ellesmere Port, and discussed a variety of important issues. The measures in the Bill were not raised on that occasion, but if the suggestion is that we are not close enough to industry and to businesses, I can assure the hon. Member for Bootle that we are.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the potential impact of the measures on the tax yield. I will use his figures—always a slightly risky thing to do, but I will on this occasion. [Interruption.] That may be unfair. He suggested that the tax yield per company car is, on average, £2,638. It is estimated that in the order of 10,000 individuals of the 1 million company car users in the UK will be affected by the ironing out of the deficiencies in the 2017 legislation—10,000 individuals will be adversely impacted by now having to pay the correct tax rather than being able to rely on the deficiencies in order to legitimately avoid that tax. That equates to about £20.6 million of forgone taxation, if every single one of those 10,000 were, as a consequence of the changes, to drop having a company car.
Of course, there are two points to make here. One is that the vast majority will not do that, so it will be a figure well below £20 million per year, and the other is that it will be offset by the additional taxation brought in by those who will no longer be absolving themselves of taxation as a result of the deficiencies in the 2017 Act. With regard to the impact on tax that the hon. Gentleman raises, I suggest that that underpins the Treasury’s view that the impact will be negligible.
The Government have already published a tax information impact note on clause 7, in line with normal practice. As set out in that note, as I have already said, clause 7 simply corrects two anomalies in the existing legislation. These changes affect only a very small number of people who have been taking advantage of the loopholes, so it will not have a significant impact on any of the areas addressed by the amendments. I therefore call on the Committee to reject the amendments tabled. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Peter Dowd
I want to pick up on a couple of points. We keep coming back to the fact that the Minister seems to brush aside the woeful lack of consultation aimed specifically at leasing companies. They are the ones dealing with this day in, day out. They are the ones who draw up the contracts. They are the people who the Government should be going to. I do not know whether the Government have been to those particular companies, but in future maybe that is something they should consider. If they have, and if I were to have conversations with those companies in future, I would check that they were aware that the Government did discuss this with them because, if that is the case, they appear to have been asleep on the job. I do not know whether that is the case, but I am sure we can check with them; I am certainly happy to check with them.
That goes to the heart of the issue about consultation. It is happening time after time that the Government are rushing through this legislation, and having huge amounts of tax legislation is complicating things as time goes by. The Bill before last, I think—I have lost track of them—was the largest Finance Bill we had ever had. I think that was before the election. It was an attempt to ram through a whole load of proposals that, fortunately, the Opposition at that point were able to stop.
I do not think 10,000 people being affected by this is a small number. It may be a small number in proportion to the number of people who could have been affected by it, but 10,000 people affected is a fair old whack. I am sure that if I were standing here saying that Labour was going to take £150 or £200 off 10,000 people, the gasps of outrage from Conservative Members would be palpable.
The other thing worth noting is that I think an awful lot of people entered into these arrangements in the best of good faith, and the Minister talking about them “taking advantage” of the tax loophole was maybe an unfortunate phrase. I do not want to pick him up on that point, but it is important to note that the vast majority of people affected by this entered into these arrangements with the best intentions, and I do not suspect that they were in any way trying to find any loopholes. They would have been advised of these arrangements by their employers or by leasing or rental companies, and I do not think it would have been on the basis of, “Here’s a tax dodge; here’s a tax loophole; go down this path.” It is important that we try to put that into context.
Mel Stride
I will briefly respond to those comments. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, because he is about to tease out from me, as he likes to term it—his term “teasing out” has gone into the parliamentary lexicon—the specific issue of consulting leasing companies and listening to their views, which we also feel is important. The draft legislation was subject to technical consultation between 6 July and 31 August 2018. One of the written responses we received was from the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, so we certainly had input from it.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about those 10,000 people affected, I think two things. First, I certainly accept, and I think I said so in my remarks, that this was not tax avoidance, but a deficiency in the way the tax legislation has been brought into effect. In no way am I casting any aspersions on the activities of those who have benefited from that deficiency. Secondly, this is not about going out and taking money off 10,000 people —I think that was the expression the hon. Gentleman used. It is just about ensuring that the tax rules we introduced in 2017, which operate effectively for the vast majority of taxpayers, apply to everybody, rather than almost everybody.
Peter Dowd
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 11, page 7, line 39, at end insert “but only if the requirement in subsection (3) is met.
‘(3) The amendment made by subsection (2) may only have effect if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a forecast of the effect on the public revenue of that amendment coming into effect in the tax year 2019-20 and subsequent tax years.’”
This requires a review of the revenue implications of the provisions of this clause to be reported to the House of Commons before this section can have effect.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in clause 11, page 7, line 39, at end insert “but only if the requirement in subsection (3) is met.
‘(3) The amendment made by subsection (2) may only have effect if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a report of a forecast of the effect of that amendment coming into effect on pension benefits to which the exemption in section 307(2) of ITEPA 2003 applies.’”
This requires a review of the effect on pension benefits of the provisions of this clause to be reported to the House of Commons before this section can have effect.
Amendment 16, in clause 11, page 7, line 39, at end insert “but only if the requirement in subsection (3) is met.
‘(3) The amendment made by subsection (1) may only have effect if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a statement to the House of Commons detailing discussions between Her Majesty’s Government and the Charity Commission regarding the provisions of this section.’”
This requires a statement to the House of Commons on discussions between the Government and the Charity Commission on this clause.
Clause stand part.
Peter Dowd
The explanatory notes state:
“This clause will amend the tax exemption which provides for employer paid premiums into life assurance products and employer contributions to certain overseas pension schemes to be paid free of tax. Currently, premiums and contributions are only exempt from tax if the beneficiary is the employee or a member of the employee’s family or household. This clause will allow the beneficiary to be any individual or registered charity.”
The explanatory notes go on in some detail, and I exhort hon. Members to read them because they are pretty important and give context to the clause. They state:
“The amended exemption will also allow employees to nominate a registered charity, which is consistent with existing government policy of providing tax relief on charitable donations.”
We tabled a number of important amendments to the clause to ensure it does not create any unforeseen issues with regard to charitable giving, which all parties have long supported. Amendment 14 requires the Government to review the revenue effects of the clause before it comes into effect. That is merely a matter of good practice. It seems that the Government are no longer willing to provide the Opposition with the full information that we need properly to scrutinise the measures they are introducing through Budget legislation, nor the legal means by which to amend them.
We are not asking for much—merely a simple statement setting out the cost of any measures introduced. We were kind enough to perform that exercise for our Conservative colleagues in our “grey book” ahead of the 2017 election, as they all know. It is a fantastic read, I have got to say, and I am happy to sign any copies of it. Unfortunately, the Government did not return the favour.
We are not alone in calling for such information. The amendment reflects the advice of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Institute of Government, whose report, “Better Budgets: making tax policy better”, states:
“we have heard that the exceptional processes around tax policy making—in particular, secrecy, more limited scrutiny and challenge, and the power of the Treasury—have led to an ever-lengthening tax code, beset by a series of problems: confusion for taxpayers, poor implementation, political reversals and constrained options.”
That just about sums up what we have been saying today. The report sets out 10 steps to make tax policy better. Again, I ask hon. Members to look through it. It says, for example, that the Budget process should contain fewer measures, and that those should be better thought-out and capable of being implemented efficiently by HMRC, with politicians making informed decisions. It asks for:
“Greater stability in the areas of the tax system where taxpayers—individuals and business—need to make long-run decisions. A tax system that commands public support—and is robust enough to raise the money we need to finance the state we want.”
We are particularly interested in step 9, in relation to this amendment:
“Enhance Parliament’s (and the public’s) ability to scrutinise tax proposals…Parliament needs to do a better job at scrutinising Finance Bills”.
That theme continues throughout the report. It sets out in some detail—I will not go into that now—the issues around the unclear value for money, which is also repeated time and again in the Public Accounts Committee report for 2015-16.
We believe that the amendment, which requests a Government analysis of the cost of these new relief proposals, would help the Government to progress towards enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of the measures that they are introducing, as described in the report that I mentioned. After all, we know that the clause will have some revenue effects as it would introduce a tax relief, under certain circumstances, where there was not one before. It is also in the Government’s interest, surely, to provide such a figure, as that would show the impact of their attempts to boost charitable donations, for example. The Government may, of course, be attempting to support additional revenue streams for charities, but we must consider the wider aims of charities.
The original intention of the big society, for example, was to slash formal public expenditure as part of the proposal—whether it did is a matter of conjecture—but there is a question about how the Government plan to pay for the measures introduced in the clause. I note that the Chancellor is currently unable to pass any tax increases for fear of the immediate loss of support from the Brexiteers, but it is important that we focus our attention on the impacts of continued or further relief being introduced in the clause. If the measure introduced in the clause had been in our manifesto platform, revenue effects would have been included in the costings, and we ask the same of the Government. Let us put the figures in; that is what the amendment seeks to do.
Amendment 15 is an important one, which requires a review of the effects of the provisions of the clause on pension benefits to be reported to the House of Commons before the section takes effect. The precise impact of the provisions on pension benefits is unclear, and I hope the Minister can clarify that. As she will know, our current pension system operates an “exempt, exempt, taxed” system. The House of Commons Library explains that system well in its briefing on reform of pension tax relief. I will quote a bit of it, because it is important:
“The tax treatment of pensions follows an ‘exempt, exempt, taxed (EET) model’…Pension contributions by individuals and employers receive tax relief and employer contributions are exempt from national insurance contributions”,
and it goes on,
“but individuals are able to take up to 25% of their pension fund as a lump sum on retirement.”
I quote that only to give a flavour of the context. Under the previous arrangements for the tax-exempt employer-provided pension benefit, some taxation would have been paid on employer contributions to certain overseas pensions systems, where the beneficiary was an individual or a charitable organisation which was not one of those listed in the original Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. Those tax-exempt beneficiaries were listed on that legislation as follows:
“‘Retirement or death benefit’ means a pension, annuity, lump sum, gratuity or other similar benefit which will be paid or given to the employee or a member of the employee’s family or household in the event of the employee’s retirement or death.”
The amendment poses a question about the impact on the overall pensions benefits if taxation is not being paid because of the exemptions the clause introduces, and asks whether an analysis of that impact has been done and, if not, why the Treasury has not looked into the matter. The clause makes a broad reference to overseas pension schemes, and it would be helpful if the Minister listed which schemes the clause would affect, and specified where they are actually based overseas. The overseas element is important, especially in the light of the Government’s decision not to uprate the state pensions of British overseas residents, which, in many cases, leaves many older people abroad destitute.
The current system of pension taxation clearly has many inequalities, which means that the way that taxation is applied to pension benefits tends to favour the wealthiest. Top rate tax payers only have to contribute 60p of every £1 saved. Meanwhile, those on low incomes have to pay 80p for every £1 saved. That is a factor in the pensions system.
Kirsty Blackman
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that when he says Charity Commission, he also means OSCR, which is the relevant body in Scotland?
Peter Dowd
Yes, I agree to that point of clarification. That is the intention. The Charity Commission and the Scottish body would no doubt recognise the seriousness of this problem, and in their strategy for dealing with fraud, they make the following point:
“The commission continues to see, and has to act on, serious problems arising in charities in relation to poor financial management and inadequate financial controls, accounting and record keeping. In 2010-11, out of 1,912 completed compliance assessment cases, the proportion involving serious concerns about fraud, theft and other significant financial and fundraising issues increased from 16% the previous year to 26%.”
Figures for subsequent years can be found in the commission’s annual publication “Tackling abuse and mismanagement”. The commission goes on to say:
“The National Fraud Authority in its annual fraud indicator report of 2012 estimated annual losses of £1.1 billion, or 1.7% of annual charity income during 2010-11.”
There is therefore a problem, because that is cash not going where it was intended. The impact of fraud and financial crime on a charity, particularly smaller charities, can be significant, going beyond financial loss and the impact of the financing of a charity’s planned activity. These crimes cause distress to trustees, and so on, and have an adverse effect on the charity. It is important to deal with them, says the Charity Commission.
If the Treasury is going to offer tax incentives for charitable donations, it is vital that the proper safeguards are in place to ensure that tax forgone does not act as an incentive to other risks. For example, from my understanding, the Charity Commission holds the only centralised list of registered charities; therefore a clear procedure for HMRC and the Charity Commission to communicate would be necessary to guarantee tax exemption. That is important.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and raising some excellent points. Does he agree that there is a need for further transparency on how these proposals were put together by the Treasury? Does he agree that there is a case for a public register of charities that benefit from this tax exemption?
Peter Dowd
If the Government decided to listen to us and undertake such a review, they would have the ability to tease out—to use that phrase—to check, to put into the mix all these important issues. We do not claim to have absolute authority on how this should be done, which is why we think wider consultation and an extensive review are absolutely appropriate. We all want the £1 that someone gives to a charity to go to the charity, and not be siphoned off in some fashion.
What procedures does HMRC already have in place for instances in which a nominated beneficiary turns out not to be a registered charity, but the person who nominated it assumed that it was? It is an important question, and it surely presents ethical issues if someone chooses to donate their benefits on the basis of fraudulent information. That is not what we want. Clearly, in the event of their passing on that information, it would not be changeable. Does HMRC plan to apply tax in those circumstances?
This will be made all the more difficult by the Government’s repeated attacks on the Charity Commission, which has been attacked time and again. Six years of cuts have led it to repeatedly warn that its ability to properly regulate the charity sector is being limited. We must take that factor into account. As reported by Devex, the news website for the global development community:
“The commission has a staff of 290 and a budget of £21 million, and while budgets have declined, the number of charities it oversees has grown by around 5,000 since 2009. The charity income it regulates has jumped from £52 billion in 2010, to more than £74 billion in 2017.”
Former Charity Commission board chair William Shawcross wrote in a 2014 report that,
“our funding position remains unstable, a matter which has been recognised by many in the charitable world and which I have raised with Government. We cannot absorb unending cuts to our budget and may have to consider alternative sources of funding.”
What assessment has the Treasury made of the impact of this measure on the struggling, underfunded commission? I hope that this matter was discussed with the Chancellor when the clause was prepared. I do not expect so, but I hope that it was.
Finally, it is clear that the measure could represent yet another injection into some private schools that operate as charities under Charity Commission guidelines. That has been recently confirmed by the House of Commons Library, which stated:
“The Government has stated that there are about 1,300 independent schools which are registered as charities and that there is a great variation in size of school across the sector: There are approximately 2,300 independent schools in England, ranging in size from the very small…Many of them are very small…The fees range from £20k per year in a prestigious day school…to far smaller amounts…Similarly, quality varies from world-leading education to some small, poorly-resourced schools”.
What assessment has the Treasury made of the amount of tax that will be forgone owing to the nomination of those particular schools?
Clive Lewis
I thank my hon. Friend for his scintillating speech, which is so full of detail and which I think everybody appreciates. Far be it from me to be a class warrior, but given yet another tax giveaway to the independent schools, which he mentioned, many Opposition Members would say that it is high time that those independent schools had their charitable tax status ended, and that omitting them from this measure would be a good start to that process.
Peter Dowd
In relation to the amendment, it is important to ensure that, where charitable donations are given—whomsoever they are given by and to—the giver knows, in good faith, that the cash that they give will go towards genuine charitable purposes. That is the key issue. Whether the definition of “charity” is open to debate in relation to any organisation is another matter. The key, and the point I think my hon. Friend is trying to make, is that charities really ought to be charities.
We hope that a statement on the discussions between the Charity Commission and the Chancellor would address some of these issues. It continues to be a big issue in this country that people who can afford to pay their taxes should pay their taxes. It is important that anybody who gives to a charity can rest assured that their charitable donation, won through their hard work, will be used with the best intentions. Our amendment would, in all good faith, ensure that.
Kirsty Blackman
The Committee will be glad to hear that I will speak only briefly. I am happy to support the Opposition’s amendments. I want to focus on amendment 16, which deals with the communication that is needed between HMRC and the charities regulator. That is incredibly important. We need such communication for individuals to be assured that their money will go to the right place and that the correct tax exemptions exist for that.
Amendment 16 would require the Chancellor to make a statement to the House
“detailing discussions between Her Majesty’s Government and the Charity Commission regarding the provisions of this section.”
If the Minister is minded not to accept the amendment, which is very sensible and the provisions of which it would be easy for the Government to carry out, is he willing to write to Opposition Members about the discussions between the charities regulators in England and Scotland and the Government, the nature of those discussions and the advice the Government have received from charities on the potential impact of the clause? Will he also cover the eloquent point made by the hon. Member for Bootle about ensuring that protection from fraud is built into any changes that are made under the clause?
If the Minister is minded to accept the amendment, that would be grand. If he is not, will he commit to contacting us with those details so that we are aware of the discussions the Government have had and we can be both comforted that our constituents who decide to give their benefits to charity can do so knowing they are less likely to be the victims of fraud as a result, and aware that HMRC is across the issue and ensuring that people do not unintentionally become victims as a result of the changes?
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I must admit that I am a little surprised by the clause, because it looks to me like the Treasury is giving away money. These days, many people are in pension schemes and, when they die, there is some money. That might go to a relative, but they might wish for it to go to a charity. The Government are being big hearted—dare I say big societied—with the clause, in that they want the individual who goes to meet their maker to leave some of their resources to a charity that is dear to their heart.
My guess is that Cats Protection and various dog charities will be the biggest beneficiaries of the clause, but it will come down to either an employer making a judgment depending on what their employee wanted, or, in the process of probate, a solicitor taking a decision that a particular charity should get that money. In most cases, we probably are not talking about multi-millionaires, and sadly, not enough people have sufficient pension or death benefits. We are probably talking about small sums of money. The simplest solution, given that there is already quite a wide definition, is to widen that definition a little more to allow someone who cares passionately about heritage or pets or some inner-city regeneration scheme to direct the money to their cause rather than to Her Majesty’s Treasury.
I am a bit worried about Treasury Ministers being so generous in introducing the clause, but it probably makes sense on better regulation terms—on reducing some of the red tape when people end up dying. It will give a little more scope for people to dispose of the money that they have earned, because they have worked all their lives for that pension, and when they die, I think it not unreasonable that they should leave it to the cause that they particularly want to support.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Members for Bootle and for Aberdeen North for their contributions, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole for his congratulations, which should largely be for me, because I am the Tax Minister and this is, after all, a tax measure, but we will leave it at that.
Clause 11 makes changes to modernise the tax exemption for premiums paid by employers to provide their employees with retirement and death benefits in life assurance products or certain pension schemes. Employers can provide death benefits for an employee through a life assurance policy or a retirement benefit through pension schemes. The employee will receive a pension out of those payments when they retire, or they can name a beneficiary to receive any payment of retirement benefit after they die.
Currently, most premiums or contributions paid by employers into these schemes are exempt from income tax. However, for certain types of scheme, as we have been discussing, this is the case only if the beneficiary is the employee, a member of the employee’s family or a member of their household. “Family” and “household” cover spouses, civil partners, parents, children and their spouses or civil partners, and dependants, domestic staff and the employee’s guests. The premiums paid by the employer for these schemes are treated as a taxable benefit in kind, if the eventual beneficiary is not covered by this definition, such as a charity or a friend. The changes made by this clause make the exemption fairer by extending it to cover premiums for policies where the beneficiary is any individual or a charity. The legislation will apply to premiums paid from 6 April 2019.
I will deal with amendments 14 and 15 together. Amendment 14 would require a review of the revenue implications of the provisions of the clause, to be reported to the House before this change can have effect. Amendment 15 would require a review of the effect on pension benefits of the provisions of the clause, to be reported to the House before this change can have effect. These amendments are unnecessary.
As with other tax measures, the Government have already published a tax information impact note for this measure. This shows that the changes are expected to have a negligible impact upon the Exchequer. Premiums paid by employers to almost all UK pension schemes and overseas pension schemes are already covered by separate tax exemptions, which apply regardless of who the beneficiary is. Therefore, the change introduced by the clause applies only to certain niche overseas pension schemes and employer-financed retirement benefit schemes.
The hon. Member for Bootle asked for specific examples of which schemes fell within the scope of this particular measure. I am afraid that we are unable to provide that information, because it depends what the terms and conditions state within each scheme.
In essence, this is a welcome change, but it affects a small number of schemes and a relatively small number of individuals. As a result, our assessment, supported by the Office for Budget Responsibility, is that the revenue implications are negligible. I think that answers the question raised by the hon. Gentleman on what the impact will be on the Exchequer and whether this has been taken into account. It certainly has been looked at and agreed upon by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The impact on pension benefits will therefore also be relatively minor. This change simply ensures that the benefits-in-kind rules apply in the same way across pension schemes and life assurance policies. I therefore urge him not to press his amendments.
Amendment 16 would require a statement of the House on discussions between the Government and the Charity Commission on this clause. HMRC does, of course, liaise with the Charity Commission and others, wherever appropriate, so such a statement would not be necessary. However, it might be helpful if I explain the position in relation to charities. The exemption will apply only where the beneficiary is recognised by HMRC as a charity for UK tax purposes. These will include charities registered with the Charity Commission in England and Wales, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked whether I might write to the Committee with further information on discussions that may have been held, and I would be happy to do that. In the first instance, it might be helpful if she were to write to me, setting out exactly what she would wish me to respond to.
Not all charities need to be registered in England and Wales. Some are exempt or excepted from registration, but most charities will be recognised by HMRC in order to claim tax relief such as gift aid. Employers will need to check with the charity that it is either registered or recognised as a charity for UK tax purposes when it is named as a beneficiary.
I hope that explains the position and that the hon. Member for Bootle might consider withdrawing the amendment.
Peter Dowd
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Tax treatment of social security income
Peter Dowd
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 12, page 9, line 7, at end insert—
‘( ) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of the provisions in this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of Clause 12.
Peter Dowd
I know people are going to be terribly disappointed that this is my last contribution today. Other colleagues must have an opportunity to have their say. The disappointment is palpable, but I must push on.
The clause deals with the tax treatment of social security income. Again, I refer to the explanatory note, which provides a helpful introduction to the clause:
“The Scottish government is introducing five new social security payments: young carer grant; best start grant; funeral expense assistance; discretionary housing payments; and carer’s allowance supplement.”
It goes on:
“The government is also confirming the tax treatment of another four social security benefits: the council tax reduction scheme, discretionary housing payments and the flexible support fund, overseen by the UK Government, and the discretionary support scheme, overseen by the Northern Ireland Executive.”
Furthermore:
“Social security benefits are administered by a number of different UK government departments and the devolved administrations. The tax treatment of social security benefits is legislated for within income tax legislation. The tax treatment of new benefits should be confirmed when each one is introduced.”
The note continues:
“The Scottish government’s fiscal framework underpins the powers over tax and welfare that are devolved to Scotland through the Scotland Act. This states that ‘any new benefits or discretionary payments introduced by the Scottish Government will not be deemed to be income for tax purposes, unless topping up a benefit which is deemed taxable such as Carer’s Allowance’.”
This, in part, relates to social security changes made by the Scottish Government, which is a matter for Scotland to decide. We also note that this ensures that some new social security payments are not subject to additional taxation, which is a sensible approach that will make the finances of many on the lowest incomes as simple as possible. We would, however, like to query the decision to make the carer’s allowance supplement taxable.
The equality impact assessment for the clause suggested that the carer’s allowance supplement will be confirmed as taxable. That is a supplementary payment to carer’s allowance, which is a taxable benefit paid by the UK Government. The majority of recipients of care allowances are women, so more women than men will receive the carer’s allowance supplement in Scotland. In effect, it looks as though the only additional social security payment being denied the tax exemption is the one that will primarily affect women. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on why that is the case. It appears to stem from the fact that the UK carer’s allowance is itself taxable—a UK Government decision that is likely to have the very same gender impacts.
The Women’s Budget Group has demonstrated on numerous occasions that women are already disproportionately affected by the Government’s policies in relation to the years of austerity. Its research shows that 86% of the austerity burden was and is being borne by women. That is eight long years during which our mothers, sisters and daughters have borne the brunt of those cuts, and now here we are with yet another measure that will disproportionately affect women more than men. A member of the Women’s Budget Group, Dr Angela O’Hagan, helped put this into context when she said:
“Budget processes have increasingly become the conduit for discriminatory policies, such as the UK Government’s rape clause and the cumulative attacks on welfare income especially among poorer women and women of colour. It is essential that external voices such as UK Women’s Budget Group are engaged and heard, and that the Government’s budget processes are opened up to closer scrutiny for their impact on equalities groups and their potential to advance equality through more effective allocation of public finances and more equitable means of raising government revenue.”
I suggest that had the Government allowed more scrutiny of the clauses and sought consultation as per the normal procedure before they came to office, these issues might have been ironed out during the Bill’s development. Instead, these negative gender impacts are squirreled away in policy papers on particular and specific clauses after it is too late to do anything about them, with the right properly to amend already denied to the Opposition by the Government through their refusal to table an amendment of the law resolution.
I hope the Minister will explain why this discrepancy has been included in the Bill and make moves to rectify it immediately. Time and again, we have called for an equality impact assessment of the Budget to flag these matters up, and every time that has been denied by the Government, who appear to want to slip these inequalities through. We will continue to hold them to account on every single one.
The amendment also relates to the matter of the Government’s behaviour regarding consultation and would require a review of the revenue effects of the clause. In the policy paper on the clause, the Government list the Exchequer impact as negligible. We have heard that several times today, so will the Minister enlighten us as to what “negligible” means in cash terms? It is not necessarily going to be “negligible” on an individual basis for those affected by this proposal. It would be helpful to have a band of figures starting, presumably, at zero and going up the scale. We hope that a proper review of the revenue effects of this measure would be made available for the purposes of good practice alone. I continue to refer Members to the “Better Budgets” report helpfully provided by the Institute for Government and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. The report states that
“the Treasury and HMRC should publish the evidence base behind measures and the assumptions on which costings are based, and ensure that these are appropriately detailed.”
Clearly, that was not the case with this measure. I have already spoken to the Committee on this point, but it is essential that the Government begin to change their behaviour towards the scrutinising of legislation, especially when it places further burdens on women. These proposals have already taken their toll and will continue to do so, unless we stand up and do something about it.
Kirsty Blackman
This is a process question for the Minister about going forward and ensuring that we scrutinise legislation in the best way. It would have been helpful if, in the explanatory notes, there had been some comment provided by the Scottish and Welsh Governments because both measures involve making changes that affect devolved benefits.
Given the devolved and reserved aspects of many of the matters we are discussing, I again make the case for a geographical split in the changes that the clause makes. There could have been specific Scottish, Welsh, RUK or whole UK sections, which would have made effective scrutiny easier. I emphasise that it would have been incredibly helpful to have that. I suggest for next year’s Finance Bill that, if the Government make changes of this nature, they could make both changes to ensure the most appropriate scrutiny.
I am happy to support the Opposition amendment. The hon. Member for Bootle made a powerful case about the gendered impact of the social security changes of recent years and the fact that women have been disproportionately hit by them. We do not want to see those changes exacerbated by a tax system that amplifies the issues faced by women as a result of the Government’s policies on social security. I am comfortable supporting the Opposition’s amendment and I plead with the Minister to consider making the changes that I have requested for future years.
Anneliese Dodds
It is an enormous pleasure to be in this Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Dorries, and to make my first brief speech here. I would like clarification from the Minister on the specific issue of tax treatment of council tax reduction schemes. Subsection (5) on page 8 of the Bill refers to “a” council tax reduction scheme, stating that
“Payment under a council tax reduction scheme”
is exempt from income tax. However, page 26 of the explanatory notes refers to
“the” council tax reduction scheme.
I am sure that colleagues will know that there is no longer one council tax reduction scheme across the UK, since central Government decided to top-slice that form of social security and devolve the design of it to different local authorities, albeit with the stipulation that the protection should be maintained for older people. Only a very small number of local authorities still provide full council tax relief, including council tax relief for low-income families. I am enormously proud that Oxford City Council is one of those.
Central Government have washed their hands of responsibility for this benefit. They have refused to provide figures on take-up, for example, in response to parliamentary questions that I have tabled. They have also refused to provide figures on the number of low-income people now being taken to court because they cannot pay council tax, because they are no longer provided with the relief. I am not cavilling over semantics when I ask the Minister to make crystal clear that the exemption from income tax provided in the Bill will apply to all council tax reduction schemes, not to some particular version of those schemes that the Government might wish to focus on.
Related to that, I heard a very worrying rumour that the Government might seek spuriously to argue that funds spent on council tax relief for families by local authorities should not be counted in central Government’s assessment of local authorities’ expenditures, because they are, in theory, discretionary. I disagree fundamentally with that position, because it would penalise those authorities that support the worst off. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that, just as I hope he will confirm that council tax relief for families is viewed as legitimate in the Bill, and for income tax purposes, it will be viewed as legitimate expenditure when it comes to the allocation of central Government support for local authorities.
Mel Stride
I start by addressing the specific points raised by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Oxford East. On the explanatory notes and the value or otherwise of a specific reference to input from the Scottish Government, I will certainly be happy to look at that in the future. I assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that there were significant discussions on these measures between the Treasury and Scottish officials in the appropriate manner. On the technical point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East around “the” scheme versus “a” scheme, the information I have is that the scheme came into force in April 2013. However, I will look into her specific question about whether the measures apply to “a” scheme or “the” scheme. I am afraid that I do not immediately have an answer to that, but I will get back to her as soon as I can.
Clause 12 clarifies and confirms the tax treatment of nine social security benefits. The income tax treatment of social security benefits is legislated for in part 10 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, which provides certainty about existing benefits and needs to be updated when new benefits are introduced. For example, the Scottish Government are introducing five new payments following the devolution of powers, including the young carer grant, the discretionary housing payment and the carer’s allowance supplement. Other payments covered by the clause have been in operation elsewhere in the UK for some time, such as the council tax reduction scheme and the flexible support fund, but are not yet covered clearly in legislation.
The changes made by clause 12 ensure that such payments are taxed appropriately, and that that is clear in legislation. The clause clarifies and confirms that such payments are exempt from tax, with one exception—the carer’s allowance supplement—which is taxable. That is in accordance with “The agreement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the Scottish Government’s fiscal framework”, which states:
“Any new benefits or discretionary payments introduced by the Scottish Government will not be deemed to be income for tax purposes, unless topping up a benefit which is deemed taxable such as Carer’s Allowance.”
Amendment 2 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the clause and lay a report of that review before the House within six months of the passing of the Bill. Such a review is unnecessary. The Government have already published a tax information and impact note for this measure, and our assessment, supported by the OBR, is that the Exchequer effects are negligible.
On the carer’s allowance supplement, which was introduced in Scotland in 2018, as a general rule benefits are taxable if they replace lost income. The carer’s allowance has therefore always been taxable. The vast majority of those receiving the supplement have income below the personal allowance and would therefore not be expected to pay any income tax. That is an important point in respect of the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle. I will not dwell on each payment covered by the clause, but I reiterate that eight of these payments are exempt from taxation. HMRC has not and will not collect any tax from these payments.
As the tax information and impact note sets out, the taxation of the carer’s allowance supplement is expected to have negligible Exchequer effects because, as I have said, the vast majority of those carers receiving the additional payment do not earn sufficient income to pay any income tax at all. However, any income tax receipts from that will of course go to the Scottish Government.
The Committee will also know that taxable social security income is aggregated and reported to HMRC through self-assessment after the end of the tax year. This is an important point in the context of the amendment. That income will not need to be reported until January 2020. A review would therefore be impractical only six months after the Bill’s passing. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Peter Dowd
We will not push the amendment to a vote. However, I push the case to the Government that, while these amounts of money may be negligible to the Treasury or to HMRC, if the measure affects a particular woman who is already under the stresses and strains of helping a relative, it is important that we give them as much latitude as we possibly can. Whether we like it or not, this will be perceived as a continued attack on women who continue to be the biggest assistants to relatives—yet again, it is an attack on those people who are doing a caring role.
Mel Stride
Once again, divine inspiration has arrived and I can confirm that the CTR is a reference to multiple schemes—so it is “a” rather than “the”. The measure therefore covers all those schemes.
Peter Dowd
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Disposals by non-UK residents etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 23, in schedule 1, page 147, line 34, at end insert—
21A The Treasury must by regulations require that a list of persons not resident in the United Kingdom whose gains are brought into charge by the changes made to TCGA 1992 in this Schedule be published on a public register.”
This amendment would require a public register of those subject to capital gains tax as a result of the provisions in Part 1 of Schedule 1.
Amendment 24, in schedule 1, page 147, line 34, at end insert—
21A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of the changes made to TCGA 1992 in this Schedule and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the changes to capital gains tax as a result of the provisions in Part 1 of Schedule 1.
Amendment 34, in schedule 1, page 147, line 34, at end insert—
21A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to TCGA 1992 in this Schedule, along with an estimate of the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners under those provisions and the amount paid, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of the changes made to capital gains tax in Schedule 1.
Government amendment 1.
Amendment 29, in schedule 1, page 167, line 47, at end insert—
Part 2A
Review of effects on property prices
118A (1) The Commissioners must, within three months of the end of the tax year 2019-20, provide information to the Treasury on the basis of the exercise of their functions in relation to the changes made in this Schedule about the effects of the changes on the matters specified in sub-paragraph (2).
(2) Those matters are—
(a) residential property prices in the United Kingdom, and
(b) the proportion of residential property in the United Kingdom owned by persons not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the end of the tax year 2019-20, undertake a review of the information supplied in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of the changes in Schedule 1 on residential property prices and foreign ownership of residential property.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 13 and schedule 1 introduce provisions, with effect from April 2019, to tax non-residents on the gains they make on UK commercial property and to extend the charge on residential property. That levels the playing field between UK resident and non-resident investors in UK land and buildings. The modern OECD model tax treaty gives the jurisdiction in which land and buildings are located the primary right to tax income and gains from those land and buildings. Historically, non-residents have not been subject to UK tax on the gains they make on UK land and buildings. That has been the policy of successive Governments over several decades. The Government have steadily revised the UK’s approach in recent years. In 2013, we introduced a targeted tax on gains relating to property within the charge of the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. In 2015, the Government went further and brought in certain non-residents’ gains on the sale of residential property owned directly.
Those 2013 and 2015 changes were a substantive reform to the taxation of non-residents investing in UK property. Now that the charges have been in place for several years, it is the right time to take a more comprehensive approach. Clause 13 achieves that by extending a charge to the gains made by non-residents on commercial property and expanding the scope of the existing residential charge by removing the carve-out for widely held companies. To ensure that transactions that are essentially sales of UK land are taxed, and to reflect the commercial reality of many large property transactions, the clause introduces a charge on indirect disposals of UK property. That charge will apply to gains made on the disposal of an interest in an entity that derives 75% of its value from UK land.
The Government recognise that these reforms are extensive, and recognise the value that investment in UK land and buildings brings to the United Kingdom. The clause implements the rules in a way that minimises disruption and avoids unintended consequences. Non-resident companies will pay corporation tax on all the chargeable gains they make on UK land and buildings, creating a single cohesive set of rules. Those taxpayers who are exempt from UK tax on the gains that they make for reasons other than their residence, for example pension funds and qualifying charities, will continue to be exempt. Steps have been taken, using principles currently applied to UK funds, to ensure that these and other investors are not disadvantaged where they invest in UK property via funds.
In legislating for this policy, the clause restates, in a simplified form, the main charging provisions for the taxation of capital gains. Other than implementing the policy, this makes no changes to the existing law. It significantly and permanently simplifies the legislation and aids taxpayers’ interpretation of the law.
Government amendment 1 will remove a redundant subsection of the Corporation Tax Act 2009. That subsection currently ensures that corporation tax is not charged on gains that are subject to capital gains tax. As I have set out, clause 13 will introduce a single cohesive set of rules charging companies corporation tax on all the chargeable gains they make on UK land and buildings, which means that this subsection is no longer required.
Amendment 23 would require a public register of those subject to capital gains tax as a result of schedule 1. The categories of person who will be brought into scope by clause 13 and schedule 1 are absolutely clear. I have set that out to the Committee today and it is set out in detail in the schedule. The Government do not, as the amendment would require, identify specific individuals or companies that are brought within the scope of particular tax charges; it would be inappropriate to do so.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. As he stated, this clause and schedule are intended to perform a variety of functions to level the playing field—the number of times that he used that phrase was interesting—between UK and non-UK residents when it comes to the payment of corporation and capital gains tax on gains from disposals of interest in UK land. They include, as he mentioned, the removal of the charge to tax on ATED-related gains, with ATED standing for the annual tax on enveloped dwellings. As was mentioned, these changes follow on from the imbalance in the tax treatment of the disposal of interests in property by individuals as against companies, artificial or otherwise, which has been gradually rectified over recent years.
Part 3 of the Finance Act 2013 introduced ATED as a principle and the concept of enveloped dwellings so that there would be a capital gains tax charge on non-natural persons who had owned properties worth more than £500,000, subject to a range of exemptions. That was followed three years ago by the extension of capital gains tax on gains arising on the disposal of UK residential property interests by certain non-resident persons, including individuals, trustees and closely held companies. However, that was not accompanied by a levelling of the playing field in relation to non-residential property wealth—land and commercial property—until now, although for reasons that I will explain, these measures are wanting in their current form, in particular because they involve a so-called trading exemption, to which I note the Minister, unless I misheard him, and he is normally very clear, did not refer in his comments. I shall speak first about that main and very significant problem with the clause and schedule, before moving on to describe the amendments in relation to them.
In an ideal world, we as the Opposition would have sought to remove the trading exemption for enveloped structures to avoid capital gains tax. Indeed, that is what some of the amendments that we had tabled set out to do. I completely understand why they were ruled out of order. There is absolutely no criticism of the decision to do that. I am sure that it was because of the restrictions imposed on us because of the Government’s failure to table an amendment to the law resolution, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle has already referred to. However, that trading exemption threatens to emasculate this measure.
I am sure that members of the Committee will be aware that almost all the measure’s projected yield is expected to derive from non-resident companies when they dispose of UK commercial property such as offices, factories, warehouses, shops, hotels, leisure facilities and agricultural—
The Chair
Order. Amendments 26 and 27 were not selected because they are charging, not because of a lack of an amendment of the law resolution.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful for the clarification. I am sorry if I got the situation wrong, and it is helpful to have heard that. However, I understand that it is appropriate for me to discuss the substantive matters in the clause, even if we do not have amendments tabled on them. Other hon. Members have done that, so I will continue to do so before I move on to my amendments, if that is acceptable. I am sorry if I mischaracterised the position and the decisions that were taken.
Anneliese Dodds
To continue with reasons why the trading exemption is illegitimate to our mind, as I mentioned before, the yield that has been described as arising from the measure is expected to derive from non-resident companies disposing of the whole range of different types of UK commercial property that I listed. Unlike residential property, most of which is owned by individuals, almost all major UK commercial property is held by large corporates or collective investment schemes or trusts.
Those large corporate investors in property are sometimes known as property envelopes, which reflects the fact that the companies’ principal purpose is to operate as a synthetic wrapper for owning land. Since the property envelope has full title to the land, any individual or other corporate owning the property envelope—for example, by owning its shares—is the ultimate or indirect owner of the underlying land.
Typically, when selling the property, the ultimate owners do so indirectly, by selling their interests in the property envelope, rather than by a direct sale of the property itself. That form of disposal is often known as an envelope disposal, since the property envelope has full title to the land, and the transfer of its shares to a new owner is tantamount to a conveyance of the property to new ownership. There are often tax reasons for that form of conveyance, since the transfer of shares, rather than land, does not attract any stamp duty land tax charge, which results in a substantial saving for the purchaser.
Recognising that situation, the consultation on the proposed measures proposed charging non-UK residents capital gains on disposals of their interest in property envelopes in the same way as if they had sold the actual land. The consultation document proposed that a property envelope would be defined as a property rich entity if it had UK property assets that represented 75% or more of the value of the entity’s total assets, as the Minister mentioned. Given that the vast majority of high-value UK commercial property is owned through a property envelope, that element of the rules, which I will refer to in future as the anti-enveloping rule for ease of discussion, is critical to the measure securing significant yield.
In response to the consultation responses that the Government received, the draft legislation includes an exception to the charge on disposals of property envelopes if the property owned in that envelope is being used in an ongoing trade that continues after the disposal takes place. In effect, that means that non-residents who make a disposal of shares in a property envelope will not be subject to any charge, provided that the property is being used for a trade.
That condition will be met if the property is being used as an office, a factory, a warehouse, a shop, a hotel, a leisure facility, in a farming trade or for any other similar commercial purpose—I am sure the Committee gets my drift. As such, the exception is surely entirely contrary to the stated rationale for the measure, which is to ensure that non-residents are taxed on gains from the disposal of commercial property in the same way as UK residents. Again, I remind the Committee that the Minister used the phrase “having a level playing field” several times in his remarks. Commercial property will, almost by definition, be used in a trade.
I am sure that the entire Committee will be scratching their heads and asking why the change occurred. Well, there were 120 respondents in all to the consultation, a number of which focused on one question only, many of which came from the most significant actors in this arena, namely the big four and large property concerns, including representatives from the real estate and collective investment scheme sector.
The Government response to the consultation states:
“Many respondents were concerned by”—
what they described as—
“the ‘cliff-edge’ nature of the 75% property richness test. They noted that fluctuations in the value of property and other assets could lead to cases where an entity strayed in and out of property richness. Some were concerned that real-estate rich trades such as retail and hotel chains and utility companies could fall to be property-rich, or that investors in these trades might be concerned that they were, and be forced to go to lengths to explore the rules and test their situation, often finding that there was no impact. To ameliorate this, a number of respondents asked for a trading exemption to make it simple for smaller investors to understand when the rules did not apply to them. They noted that the main policy aim was to tax UK land, not interests in retailers or utility companies.”
The Government response went on to say that,
“the government will agree to add a trading exemption. When a disposal is made of an interest in an entity that is trading both before and after the disposal, as for connected parties under the Substantial Shareholdings Exemption rules, then it will not be considered to be an indirect disposal of an interest in UK land”—
That is, it will not be treated as an enveloped disposal.
“Although the government does not intend to provide a specific exemption for infrastructure, a trading exemption should also deal with instances where the infrastructure disposed of is in use as part of an ongoing trade being disposed of alongside it in the arrangement.”
Surely, that exemption will undermine the overall intent of the measure. First, the main target of the legislation is enveloped disposals of commercial property made by non-residents. Almost all commercial property will, as I mentioned before, by definition, be used in a trade. The examples of commercial property given in the consultation document—offices, shops, industrial units and hotels—are all examples where the property is used in a trade, yet these disposals will be outside the scope of the new rules, provided that the sale is an enveloped one, and that the trade continues under its new ownership.
That is in clear contrast to the situation for UK residents. An equivalent disposal made by a UK resident is chargeable to tax, unless it meets specific conditions laid out in those substantial shareholding exemption rules—the SSE rules, which the consultation response referred to. The original consultation document was clear that non-residents would be able to benefit from the substantial shareholding exemptions in the same way as UK companies. However, the response document, as I just described, goes further than that: it grants a blanket exemption available only to non-residents and in circumstances much wider than the SSE.
Frankly, I very much doubt that many property envelopes or large investors involved in them would go to the lengths of requiring ongoing trades in their ownership—say, a popular hotel—to close while they are selling that commercial property, just so that they can have the joy of paying stamp duty land tax. If the Government think otherwise, perhaps they can enlighten us, but I think the chances of that are fairly slim. That appears to be what would be necessary in order for them to be caught by this measure. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us, if I have got that wrong.
This trading exemption undermines any claim that the measure creates a level playing field with comparable UK businesses, and also provides an avoidance opportunity that, worryingly, even UK businesses could exploit, if they arrange for their UK property to be held through chains of offshore envelopes. That is surely something that our Government cannot stand by and facilitate, yet they seem to be doing so—albeit unwittingly, I am sure.
The Government’s stated reason for making this change is to help smaller investors, but if that is the aim, surely it would be more appropriate to include an explicit small-investor exemption that would not apply to larger capital gains.
Kirsty Blackman
I will speak relatively briefly. It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Oxford East, who is leading for the Opposition on these measures. I concur with her comments about the Labour amendments—the Scottish National party will be happy to support them. Foreign ownership of properties and the impact on price is pertinent and relevant to the SNP proposal.
On amendment 34, the explanatory notes are incredibly difficult to follow. By the time we get to “ggg” in the explanatory notes, things become very difficult to refer to. If there is another explanatory note of that length in future years, it would be useful if the staff could come up with a better numbering system. As I say, it is difficult to refer to those sections when we are going around the alphabet for the third time.
The public register proposed by Labour is an interesting idea and, in principle, the Scottish National party is in favour. As I said, transparency is important when encouraging everybody to pay the correct amount of tax, because if tax owed is publicly known—the calculation of the tax gap is pertinent to this topic—people are more likely to pay. The Government should say clearly, “This is the amount of tax owed, this is how hard we are chasing it down and, as a result, this is the tax gap.” It bothers me that the Government say regularly that the UK tax gap compares favourably with that of other countries. It does not matter whether it compares favourably with other countries: any tax gap is a bad thing and, if one exists, the Government clearly need to work to ensure that they are reducing it as far as possible. Given the issues that have been brought up by Opposition Members and by many external organisations, it is clear that the Government could do more to reduce the tax gap. It is not good enough to say, “We are doing quite a good job, and therefore we should stop here.” The Government need to be able to say, “We are doing the best job on reducing the tax gap that we possibly can.”
On foreign ownership and the residential property price, I was disappointed that the Labour amendment on landholdings was not accepted—I understand the reasons why it was not allowed, but I would have been keen to debate it. There are specific Scotland-related issues not so much about residential property—that is an issue in Scotland but not to the same extent as it is in London—as about other landholdings. That is a significant problem in the Scottish context. Foreign ownership of those landholdings concerns a huge number of people in Scotland.
Regarding the benefits of transparency, the SNP has called for measures to reduce tax avoidance, and the Government have talked a good game about things like Scottish limited partnerships after a huge amount of pressure from the Scottish National party. However, we are still waiting for action. If the Government say they are doing positive things to reduce tax avoidance, they need to follow through. Rather than just producing a consultation, they need to take the required action to reduce the numbers of people who are abusing Scottish limited partnerships. We need the Government to be seen to be serious in this regard, and to take the action they have promised to take. The House operates on trust, and throughout my time in this place, I have seen a number of Opposition amendments withdrawn because ministerial teams from all Departments have given assurances. If the Government do not take action soon on Scottish limited partnerships, they risk seriously eroding that trust and may end up in a situation in which ministerial assurances, and particularly assurances from Treasury Ministers, are not accepted because the Government have not followed through previously.
The income tax, national insurance contribution and capital gains tax gap sits at about £13.5 billion, which is a significant amount of money. If any changes are being made to those taxes, and particularly to CGT, it is reasonable to ask about the impact on the tax gap, and reasonable for the Government to have those figures at their fingertips. They should be able to say not just what the impact is on the total tax take from any changes, but also what the impact is on the tax gap.
If the Government are talking about cracking down on tax avoidance, it is important that they prove to us that the tax gap is being reduced. It is not good enough to just say, “We think this measure will reduce tax avoidance.” The Government need to tell us by how much they will reduce tax avoidance. They need to be clear on the impact of those changes before they introduce them.
I intend to push amendment 34 to the vote if we have the opportunity to do so. I would be happy to support the Labour party on their amendment. I would also like to seek further assurance and a clarification from the Minister in relation to the pursuit of tax avoidance reduction measures, and a commitment from him that the Government will follow through on the tax avoidance reduction commitments they make today.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North for their contributions. I compliment the hon. Member for Oxford East on arraying a mass of highly technical questions on a very technical area. I will do my best to answer her them, but I will write to her accordingly if I am unable to do so. She accurately mapped out the process that we have been going through for a number of years, moving into the space of the appropriate taxation of non-resident entities when it comes to property transactions. She recognises, as I do, that it is the right direction of travel, and that it is right to introduce the measures set out in clause 13, although she has several concerns about the detail.
The hon. Member for Oxford East dedicated a specific section of her remarks to the issue of property-rich businesses and the trading exemption. She gave some examples where she felt that this would be an inappropriate exemption, around both the general principle of the exemption for trading purposes and the specific threshold figure of 75%. She used the expression “cliff edge” to refer to what there might be around that number.
On the basic principle, this measure seeks to avoid the circumstances whereby a business—a significant supermarket chain, for example—might be sitting on a substantial amount of land and might even have banked some land for future development. However, the business’s principal purpose is the purchase and sale of a variety of goods, with that being the core of the particular business being looked at. Were a sale of that business under those circumstances to occur, it would seem appropriate that the investors in that business—where it was consequently below the 75% threshold—would not fall within the measures due to the taxation measures that we have been considering.
As to the specific figure of 75%, it is the same issue as the 25% threshold figure that the hon. Member for Oxford East raised in relation to whether individual investors would fall within these measures, or whether they would be expected to know or not know about the property richness of the business in which they were investing—we inevitably run into a generalised problem with figures, which is that we have to choose one. There will always be a debate about whether 75% is the right figure, or indeed 25%. However, a figure has to be applied, to make it scientific and rigorous.
Then there is the question of what we have done to ensure that 75% and 25% are the right figures, as opposed to figures that we have just plucked out of the air. That leads us to the extensive consultation that has been undertaken in respect of the Bill, with some 80 responses around the measures raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East. As I would say of all tax measures, this one included, they are kept under continuous review by the Treasury, so it is quite possible that we will return to these matters in future legislation, specifically on the issue of thresholds.
The hon. Member for Oxford East spent some time referring to the amendments and the question of whether there should be a register of those who fall within the scope of these capped measures. There is a basic principle here that just feels right to me, which is that the Government should not be in the business of holding up individuals to the public as falling due for particular types of tax. Once you start moving into that kind of space, it feels rather disproportionate and a little authoritarian, if I may say so. It is right to resist that urge.
I was going to raise one other matter in that context, which is important, and that is that the hon. Member for Oxford East referred—she very kindly did this for me although I did not do so in my opening speech—to the implementation of a register of beneficial owners of overseas entities owning or buying property in the UK. We will bring that in by 2021, and the register will be the first of its kind in the world. That underscores the importance of transparency to this Government.
Sir Robert Syms
Is the amount of revenue raised in this area more or less than was raised under the previous Labour Government?
Mel Stride
If I interpret my gallant and hon. Friend’s question as relating to the specific issue of overseas holdings of UK land and properties and paying CGT on the transactions they are in, I would be fairly confident in saying that we will be raising more. Indeed, through time and through dealing with the measures I identified earlier, I strongly suspect that the answer is yes. I am seeing nods of an inspirational kind from over my left shoulder, so I can reassure him that is indeed the case.
The hon. Member for Oxford East also raised the effect of these measures on the market and the suggestion of a review to look at price effects. The Office for Budget Responsibility has already done such an analysis and concluded that these measures would have a negligible effect on price. She also raised the issue of taxation treaties, particularly Luxembourg, which is a fair point because there are instances when the international taxation treaties—the bilateral treaties between ourselves and other tax jurisdictions—do not quite fully accommodate the measures we are looking at here. I know we are actively engaged in the specific case of Luxembourg to seek changes to those arrangements to make sure they facilitate the measures we are looking at here.
With regard to TIINs, I must say that I do not have the same confusion as the hon. Member for Oxford East. I am not making a specific point, other than that I have not noticed it, but I will look at it again. The relevant TIIN is the one entitled “Capital gains tax and corporation tax: taxing gains made by non-residents on UK immovable property”, which was last updated on 7 November 2018.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North had several points to make, particularly about the tax gap. She suggested that there might be some complacency on the part of the Government, and that it might be assumed that, because we already have a world-beating tax gap level, we are not pushing forward with further measures. I can reassure her that that is not the case. Indeed, the Bill contains several measures that further bear down on the tax gap, of which this is one. It will build our tax base and further enhance our ability to raise tax, which of course is very important. The point I would make is that we have both the legislation, some of which I have referred to, and several other practical measures that the Government are bringing in that are driven by HMRC —for example, making tax digital, which is an approach to bearing down on the tax gap when it comes to the operations of smaller companies in the United Kingdom.
I hope that has covered the majority of the issues raised, but I would be happy for the hon. Members for Oxford East or for Aberdeen North to write to me if they would like me to respond to any other issues.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for those comments, but I would like to clarify a few points, so that we are not talking at sixes and sevens. In relation to the trading exemption, the point is not that it would exempt certain categories of business as opposed to others, but that it would exempt those businesses that are trading before and after the disposal, so it introduces a new concept that is not applied to UK-resident investors to the same extent. That is what is relevant, rather than whether we are talking about a supermarket or not. That would be relevant to the property richness test, but the trading exemption is a separate element of the Bill that I was trying to push on.
In relation to the 25%, the Minister always valiantly attempts to support his Government’s policies. He is right that a figure must surely be attached to any numerical proposition in a Bill. He tried to do that here and said that 25% had been arrived at. The suggestion was that any figure could be contested. Again, it is not the specific value of that figure that is problematic, but what the figure refers to. My contention was that the Government should focus not necessarily on the proportion of the gain, but on the value of the gain. His Government have decided to focus not on the value but on the proportion. As I said, 25%—or rather, 20%—of a gain could be £1 million, which is a tremendously large value, but it could be a smaller proportion if it is just 20%.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Lady agree that having both of those in the Bill would be useful, so we could have the 25% figure or gains over £200,000, or any such figure as the Government deemed appropriate?
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Government are quite keen on double thresholds in other contexts, so this is a case where a double threshold could be introduced if they were concerned about protecting those small investors. One could have both a measure related to the proportion of the gain and one related to the value of the gain. That could be very sensible.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on tax treaties, but I was trying to get at whether he feels that the reference in the legislation—I cannot remember the exact term used in the explanatory notes, but it is something like referring to the “intent” or “spirit” of the tax treaty, rather than the letter—is sufficiently legally watertight. I am concerned that it would not be, because many people who have moved their tax affairs to Luxembourg to avoid tax are quite adept at reading just the letter and not conforming with the spirit, when they want to.
Finally, in response to the question from the hon. and gallant Member for Poole—
Anneliese Dodds
I am a new Member and I am always getting my fingers rapped about how to refer to other Members. I never want to upset anyone, so I hope I have not upset the hon. Gentleman.
If we look at the proportion of the commercial property market owned by non-UK investors, we see that there has been a change over time. We should surely consider that when we look at the impact or otherwise of Government policy, as well as the absolute amount of tax revenue that will go up since absolute figures go up because of inflation and so on. I do not wish to try the patience of the Committee, so we will not press our amendments to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
I am willing to try the patience of the Committee in this instance.
Amendment proposed: 34, in schedule 1, page 147, line 34, at end insert—
“21A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to TCGA 1992 in this Schedule, along with an estimate of the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners under those provisions and the amount paid, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”—(Kirsty Blackman.)
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of the changes made to capital gains tax in Schedule 1.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (First sitting)
(6 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have the usual preliminary announcements. You may remove your jackets. I remind you that only water may be consumed during Committee sittings. Will you please ensure that you switch your mobile phones to silent mode as I have just done? Document boxes with your names on are provided at the back of the Committee Room. This will be our room for the duration of this Committee, and it will be locked between sittings, so if you wish to leave your papers here rather than carrying them around, please do.
The Committee will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, for which debate is limited to half an hour, and then proceed to a motion to report any written evidence. We will then begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I will first call the Minister to move the programme motion in the terms agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee and then call Kirsty Blackman to speak to amendment (a). There will be a single debate on the motion and selected amendments.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 27 November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 27 November;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 29 November;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 December;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 December;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 November;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4; Clause 7; Clauses 11 to 13; Schedule 1; Clause 14; Schedule 2; Clause 17; Schedule 5; Clause 18; Schedule 6; Clause 21; Clauses 24 to 26; Schedule 9; Clause 27; Schedule 10; Clause 28; Schedule 11; Clauses 29 to 31; Schedule 12; Clauses 32 to 35; Schedule 13; Clause 36; Schedule 14; Clause 37; Clauses 43 to 45; Clauses 48 to 51; Schedule 16; Clause 52; Schedule 17; Clauses 53 to 60; Clauses 63 to 67; Clauses 79 to 82; Clauses 84 to 88; Schedule 19; Clauses 91 and 92; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 11 December.—(Mel Stride.)
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment (a), leave out—
“(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 29 November”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Date Time Witness Thursday 29 November Until no later than 12.15 pm HM Treasury; HM Revenue and Customs Thursday 29 November Until no later than 1.00 pm Office for Budget Responsibility Thursday 29 November Until no later than 3.30 pm The Institute for Fiscal Studies Thursday 29 November Until no later than 5.00 pm The Chartered Institute of Taxation”
Amendment (b), after “Tuesday 11 November;” insert—
“(1A) The Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table—
Amendment (c), at end insert—
“(4) The Committee recommends that the programme order of the House [12 November] should be amended in paragraph 7 by substituting ‘18 December’ for ‘11 December’.”
Kirsty Blackman
It is a pleasure to make the first substantial speech in this Finance Bill Committee—the first of many, I am sure.
Once again, the Scottish National party has tabled an amendment to the programme motion. It has concerned me for a long time that Finance Bill Committees do not take evidence and I think it would be better for the quality of debate if they did. This year, there are specific issues relating to the lack of consultation on the draft clauses and to the tight timescale for considering the Bill. I raised in Committee of the whole House my concerns about the fact that paper copies of the Bill were published on a Wednesday and we had to debate them on the Monday, which did not give us enough time given that the House was in recess. External organisations have also raised concerns about the lack of time for scrutiny, particularly for the unusually high number of clauses that were not consulted on in draft form. Glyn Fullelove of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, whom I quoted in Committee of the whole House, has been a particular critic of the process.
The SNP asks that, on Thursday, instead of having two normal sittings as planned, we take evidence from the Treasury, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. They all know more about the legislation than we do, so it would be incredibly useful to hear from them.
I must also point out that the Government have included several clauses to make changes to previous legislation that was deficient. If Government legislation is deficient, I contend that more consultation must be a good thing.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that, as I understand it, the Committee in the other House is taking evidence on elements of the Bill, surely the hon. Lady agrees that we should be afforded that opportunity in this House.
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely. It is odd that the House of Lords is more democratic than this place in relation to the Bill.
The Finance Bill Committee should take evidence. I know that it is a long-standing convention that it does not, but having served on the Public Bill Committee on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 and heard the evidence taken, I know how useful it was for Committee members and how many of them referred to it in subsequent debate. It was an incredibly useful exercise and the legislation that came forward was better as a result.
As I flagged up in last year’s Finance Bill debates, it is very good that external organisations have submitted written evidence, but I guarantee that the majority of hon. Members in this Committee have not read it all because of how little time we have had. Allowing us to question witnesses on the evidence that they provide on the Finance Bill Committee would be incredibly useful. The Government might not accept that this year, but can we consider taking evidence in future years? I am not the only one calling for this. The “Better Budgets” report produced by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and various other organisations called for the Finance Bill Committee to take evidence two and a half years ago, so external organisations have requested it, not just the SNP.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I hear what the hon. Lady says. Some of us have not been in the House for a great deal of time. I sat on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee, which lasted for 20 sittings, with a marathon sitting just before Christmas three years ago. We heard a great deal of evidence that significantly informed the debates. Some members of this Committee might have been on that one. Interestingly, some of the evidence we took proved to be absolutely spot on, because the Government subsequently ended up changing some of their housing policies. The Government made the same argument at the time: “No, we have thought this through. We have consulted”, but the ability to hear from experts who live and breathe these issues was beneficial.
It was the same on the Criminal Finances Bill, which covered a pretty niche area. The job of Parliament is to scrutinise legislation, so we need the tools to do that. Whichever party is in control, it has the full back-up of the civil service, who are themselves experts and, to their credit, know their work, but it is important that the Opposition are able to get independent assessment and adjudication of what the Government tell us. That does not mean I do not believe a word that Ministers say—I believe everything they say. It is just that we do not necessarily get the full facts. I have found it very useful in the past to have evidence sessions, and the Government should give serious consideration to that.
I think this is the fourth Finance Bill I have sat on in the past two years, although my recollection is not what it used to be. We have also had the customs Bill, which is also a finance Bill, so we have had effectively five finance Bills in a short period of time and in a time of incredible turbulence and change. There might not be a convention or a tradition to take evidence in Finance Bills, but there comes a time when we think, “This is as good a time as any to take evidence because the circumstances have changed substantially.”
We have also had what amounts to movement on the convention in relation to the amendment of the law. As everybody knows, it has been used only about half a dozen times since 1929 when Winston Churchill introduced it. It has been used six or seven times, including three times by the Government in less than that period in years. That is a substantive and significant change. The Minister kindly responded to my letter about that and indicated that it was not necessarily a significant change, but it is. If we as a Committee—as a House—have done something only six or seven times in the best part of 90 years, changing that convention is significant. For that reason as well, we need to take a step back and decide that perhaps we need evidence sessions to tease out some of those important things.
It would also give assurance to the House, to Back-Bench Members and to the public in general that we take those matters seriously and that it is not business as usual—that just because we have done something for years or decades, we do not carry on doing it regardless. It would send a message that, in these turbulent times, the House takes the country’s finances seriously.
Therefore, we should seriously consider taking evidence. After all, we are all open to public scrutiny in one fashion or another—in fact, there is no doubt that we welcome it, and I do not suggest that the Government do not welcome it too. If we do not object to that scrutiny, why do we not institutionalise it, do what other Committees have done in the past and take evidence? Let experts in their field challenge us, and let us challenge them.
Kirsty Blackman
One of the Government’s arguments against taking evidence is the fact that the Bill is split between the Committee of the whole House and the Bill Committee, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we in the Bill Committee tend to consider the more technical amendments on which we most need evidence to make good legislation?
Peter Dowd
That is a perfectly fair point. Inevitably, when we get into Committee, the clauses that we discuss are very technical and it is those technical clauses for which we need some evidence.
At the end of the day, we have had written evidence from the Chartered Institute of Taxation on clauses 7, 11, 81 and several others, which I read with great interest. Some of the comments were very pertinent. It would have been a good opportunity to tease out some of the issues in those clauses in more detail. As I said, none of us are concerned about challenge—that is why we came into Parliament. We are here to be challenged, and that is the nature of our democracy.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend has hit the centrality of the issue. The failure to move the amendment of the law resolution means that this Bill Committee becomes much less of a political conversation and more of a technical one. We can see on the programme motion the amendments that have been ruled out of order—reasonably, by applying the rules that the Government have put on the Committee. It has not been permitted for us to have a political conversation about different approaches to income tax, and if the Committee cannot have the political analysis, we should surely have the technical one, which has to involve experts.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend has a laser-like focus. In that regard, the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot tell us that, on the one hand, we are dealing with all these technical issues and we should not be dealing with those wider issues, hence the amendment of the law, but in the same breath tell us that we cannot have any face-to-face consultation or oral evidence.
I give credit to the Government in so far as they have consulted pretty widely on these matters, but I have been involved in lots of consultations that have been paper exercises. I do not mean that lightly—they have been genuine attempts at consultation where people have written in to express this or that view—but during the process, I have certainly been in situations where we have decided, in the light of the evidence that we have and of the information provided to us through that consultation process, that we were going to say, in an open and transparent fashion, “Okay, let’s stop. We have all this consultation. We’ve read it. We’ve listened to it. Why don’t we just tease it out a bit more with some of the people who have taken the time to write back to us?” Organisations have indicated to us that they would welcome evidence sessions. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has indicated some people we could see, but there are lots more. Frankly, we could have three days of evidence sessions, which would not be a bad thing per se. The idea that we focus it down to one day, with the organisations that hon. Lady has identified, is not, in the grand scheme of things, a difficult process, issue or onus. I exhort the Government to listen carefully to what we have said in the genuine spirit of trying to make this a better Bill. There may be agreement and we may have a better Bill where there is no agreement. I exhort the Government to listen carefully and accede or acquiesce—not capitulate—to our request.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I have just a few points about where we are going. There are a number of events in Parliament that get quite a lot of public interest; the Queen’s Speech is normally one and the Budget is another. People make representations to the Treasury in advance of the Budget, but afterwards the Financial Times and almost every insurance company, bank and accountancy firm produce reams of information on what changes have occurred. The one sure thing about the Budget is that a number of trees will be cut down, to supply information to the great British public on what changes have already occurred. Actually, I do not think that this is one of those Committees that needs to take lots of information, because most of us will have lots of information already.
One could substitute vested interests for the point about experts, because there are an awful lot of vested interests in this country. As a large Committee of the House of Commons, we sometimes have to navigate our way through that, so we could sit for months listening to vested interests on a whole range of subjects and not actually make any decisions. The purpose of this Committee is to look at what the Government have done, maybe make some decisions and then report back to the House.
Kirsty Blackman
On that point, is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that both the Treasury and HMRC have vested interests other than trying to make good law?
Sir Robert Syms
Out in the big wide world, there are an awful lot of people who would come to this Committee, given the chance. The biggest difficulty we would have would be deciding who to invite, and we could be sitting in this Committee for months. I think it is quite clear that most people understand the key points of the Budget, because lots of information has been produced. When I was in opposition and the Labour party was in government, I probably made a similar speech to the one made by the Opposition spokesman. The Minister will probably make the same speech that Labour Ministers made when we raised the same point. The only point of having additional information is that it helps the Opposition in tabling amendments. That is the only reason normally stated.
Jonathan Reynolds
The process of the Bill is not just to review what the Government have done, but to have a contested conversation about the impact of those changes and what the benefits might be. For example, all of the evidence produced for this Budget and many others would say that the Government’s substantial cuts to corporation tax will cost this country a lot of money. That is not a widely accepted point on the Conservative Benches. They would say that, by reducing the tax rate, the revenue has gone up. No experts would sign off on that, but that is surely the conversation we should have in this Committee, as politicians, based on the evidence submitted. That is the right balance between the two.
Sir Robert Syms
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the reality is that we have had a Budget, which is a big event. We then had three or four days of debate on the Floor of the House. We then debated the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House. This Committee will run for a number of sittings. It will then go back to the Floor of the House. This will have more debate than most other Government motions. I suspect that by the end of the process we will be even better informed than we were before, as the serried ranks of the Treasury come in and feed paper to the Minister.
I served on one of the coalition Government’s Finance Bill Committees, and on two or three under the previous Labour Government, dealing with substantive issues such as when we took away all the tax relief on banks when they lost billions of pounds—had we not done so, they would never pay tax again. There were substantial changes made in the Finance Bill after the financial crash. We did not take evidence then, because it was a time for action, not debate. I look forward to hearing Ministers get on with the job of dealing with this Committee and with matters that are important to business and individuals in this country.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I have served on one other Public Bill Committee, which was on the energy price cap. We heard lots of evidence from many companies about the benefits or disbenefits of having an energy price cap. I see no difference between that Bill Committee and this one. I do not see why we should not hear evidence from experts who can advise us on what happens, as we do in other Bill Committees. It does not make sense to have one rule for one situation and a different rule for another.
Sir Robert Syms
We could have a general rule that every single Committee of the House should take evidence on every single mater, but the problem is that Committee sittings would then last considerably longer. They would need to be staffed up and we would have difficulty getting Members to serve on the Committees and listen to all that evidence. Ultimately, governing is about taking decisions. There has to be a balance in understanding what points of view people take. We can sit here endlessly listening to advice, but we have to make choices.
Kirsty Blackman
We cannot sit hear endlessly listening to advice, because the Committee has to end by 11 December. We are talking about one day of taking information from people so that we can be better informed in the debates that we will have up until 11 December, at which point this Committee will end, because that is what the House has decided.
Sir Robert Syms
Members of the Committee have a mandate to scrutinise the Government. If we take one day out of that scrutiny, we are reducing our ability to question the Minister on some very important matters. Personally, I would like to take all the time to question the Minister on why decisions have been taken, and I am sure I will get very good answers.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and a pleasure to serve on my third Finance Bill Committee—I think that it is the fourth such Committee for the hon. Member for Bootle, but it is reassuring to see broadly the same team arrayed. We were a fairly jovial and decent lot in the last Committee, so I am pleased to be serving alongside them again. The hon. Member for Bootle said that he always believes everything that the Minister says, which is a fine start to our deliberations over the coming weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole said that I was probably dusting off the previous Labour Government’s speech from when they were faced with the same questions. Indeed I have, so I hope that will be acceptable to Opposition Members.
Amendments (a), (b) and (c), tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, seek to revise the programme motion by introducing a day of oral evidence and extending the time spent in Committee. It is of course important that the provisions of the Bill receive sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. The Government’s tax policy making framework ensures that that occurs, and I do not think that evidence to a Public Bill Committee would effectively further that aim.
The amendments would introduce a day of oral evidence from, among others, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Office for Budget Responsibility. Let me be clear that I agree that effective parliamentary scrutiny of this and any other Finance Bill is crucial, and I am always open to considering how that can be improved. However, for the following reasons, I am not persuaded by the merits of delaying the Committee in order to allow oral evidence to be taken. We accept that any additional evidence sessions would certainly increase the amount of scrutiny of the Bill, but that is not the same as saying that, in the absence of such sessions, the scrutiny of the Bill would be insufficient—as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has set out, there has been very considerable scrutiny already—or indeed that additional days of evidence would provide a proportionate response to the need for scrutiny.
First, in line with the new approach to tax policy making set out in the Government’s 2010 framework, the Government already undertake extensive consultation with stakeholders before legislating in the Finance Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
On that point, does the Minister not accept that this year that “extensive consultation” has not been as extensive as it has been in previous years, and nor as extensive as it should be?
Mel Stride
I do not accept that. As I will argue, there is a process that we go through, which starts with the Budget announcement. We then go into formal consultation, which is applied to a number of measures within the Bill. We also of course publish draft clauses—I think that was on 6 July this year. I believe that around 226 pages of draft legislation were published at that time out of a total Bill length of 315 pages. It is considerable. We have received written evidence, the Bill will go through this Committee, it was considered by Committee of the whole House, we will then have Report stage, and we will examine amendments all the way through. The level of scrutiny received by a Finance Bill is well in excess of most Bills that come before the House.
My second point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, relates to the fact that the Bill was considered in Committee of the whole House. Were the amendments to prevail, any evidence session in this Committee would not capture the important issues debated in Committee of the whole House. The Committee should be aware that Committee of the whole House is, I would argue, where the more important measures are considered, and they are put to the whole House rather than simply the members of this Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds
The Minister referred to the historical state of affairs for scrutinising Finance Bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said that the change this time has been the failure to move the amendment of the law resolution. This is only the sixth or seventh time that has happened since 1929. By convention of the British constitution, that has happened only very close to or on either side of an election to tidy up the statute book and get measures through before Parliament prorogues. Is this the Government’s established state of affairs? Will we conduct Finance Bills in this way under a limited technical scope by failing to move that amendment of the law resolution?
Mel Stride
I am not going to be drawn into what may or may not happen in future—the usual channels and the Government of the day take those decisions—other than to say that this is not a unique occurrence. As the hon. Gentleman recognises, this has happened in the past. Indeed, the very argument that just because it has not happened in the past does not mean it should not happen now, which is being applied to the seeking of an additional day, could also apply to the amendment of the law resolution. It has happened in the past and this is not the first time with a Finance Bill. In fact, the two I have taken through the House to date have been subject to those provisions.
The IFS, the OBR and others produce analysis of Budget measures before or after the event. They also typically give oral evidence to the Treasury Committee on the Budget as a whole before the Committees on the Finance Bill. Oral evidence at a Public Bill Committee will replicate that analysis while limiting its scope to those parts of the Bill not selected for the Committee of the whole House.
Finally, the programming of business is a matter for business managers and the usual channels. Those channels establish the programme motion that was agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, which is made up of Government and Opposition Members. They were not persuaded that oral evidence sessions would be beneficial and, I am afraid, neither am I. As such, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister’s argument does not make sense in relation to the things that are most important being discussed in the Committee of the whole House. I would contend that clause 1 is probably the most important in the Bill given that it allows Government to charge income tax for future years. I suggest that the ones discussed in the Committee of the whole House are the most political, as they are agreed between the usual channels, and ones where the Opposition tend to think they might be able to get a win out of the Government, as was adeptly proven last week with the number of amendments accepted by the Government. I take the opportunity to say that I am pleased about that, because our amendments are not often accepted—I am quite chuffed about that one.
The Public Bill Committee debates are on the more technical aspects. This is less political and less likely to be chewed over by the Financial Times on its front page because it is immensely technical. The tax code has changed significantly and increased massively in the past few years. There is a huge volume of tax legislation and lots of it is incredibly technical. The stuff we are discussing in the Public Bill Committee is immensely technical and I disagree with the Minister on how external organisations have raised concerns about how few of the draft clauses were consulted on.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this Committee will debate a number of technical clauses. Surely if they are technical, does that not lend itself to an examination based on written evidence based on, for example, approaching me with written questions or discussions or indeed a meeting, or perhaps a meeting that I can facilitate with officials present to get into the detail, rather than a broad brush quick day with various advisers and organisations that we quiz?
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister makes a slightly circular argument. He suggests that questioning him would help us to improve the legislation and that questioning external experts who have to apply tax changes would be less useful.
Peter Dowd
Does the hon. Lady agree that there is an issue? The Labour party tabled a number of amendments, 10 or 11 of which were ruled out of scope. I do not criticise that at all. There is no criticism—
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 3 stand part.
Clause 4 stand part.
Mel Stride
Clause 1 provides the charge for income tax for 2019-20, clauses 3 and 4 set the main, default and savings rates of income tax for 2019-20. Income tax is one of the most important revenue streams for the Government, and raised nearly £181 billion last year. The power to charge income tax is legislated annually in the Finance Bill, and is central because it allows for income tax to be collected in order to fund the vital public services on which we all rely. Clause 1 grants this power for 2019-20. Clause 3 keeps the basic, higher and additional main rates of income tax at the same level as last year for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Clause 4 keeps the basic, higher and additional rates of default and savings rates of income tax at the same level as last year for the whole of the United Kingdom.
We are supporting working people by increasing the tax-free personal allowance and the point at which people pay the higher rate of tax to £12,500 and £50,000 respectively. Keeping rates the same alongside increasing the personal allowance and higher rate threshold means people can keep more of what they earn. By April 2019 we will have cut taxes for 32 million people and taken 1.74 million of the lowest-paid out of income tax altogether since 2015. Clause 1 ensures that the Government can collect income tax in the tax year 2019-20 in order to fund key spending commitments. Clauses 3 and 4 ensure that the rates of income tax remain unchanged and make sure that hard-working people keep more of what they earn and that those who earn the most continue to pay their fair share. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Kirsty Blackman
I hope the Minister can answer my question in the positive. In the clauses, the devolved and reserved aspects are split. They are considered separately, which makes a huge amount of sense. I asked the Minister earlier whether he would consider doing that in future years for all clauses, particularly those similar to clause 5. I am not expecting a positive, definite answer that he will do that in future years, but will he commit to considering splitting the devolved and reserved aspects on income tax in future years, so that the House can better scrutinise legislation?
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which we touched on in the Committee of the whole House. She will be aware that clause 3 is subject to the English votes for English laws process because non-savings earnings are devolved to Scotland, so that clause only applies to Northern Ireland, Wales and England, while clause 4 on the savings and dividend rates applies UK-wide. I understand her point and we will be happy to look at that in the future. As things stand, we support where we are at the moment in the division of those particular clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Corporation tax charge for financial year 2020
Peter Dowd
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 1, line 7, leave out from “tax” to end and insert
“may be charged for the financial year 2020 if the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is, prior to 6 April 2019, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a review of the corporation tax receipts of multinational companies with UK-domiciled subsidiaries in relation to their publicly available UK-based revenue.”.
This amendment requires a review of the effects of corporation tax receipts of multinational companies compare with their UK-based revenue.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 7, leave out from “tax” to end and insert
“may be charged for the financial year 2020 if the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is, prior to 6 April 2019, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a review of the corporation tax receipts of technology companies with UK-domiciled subsidiaries in relation to their publicly available UK-based revenue.”.
This amendment requires a review of the effects of corporation tax receipts of technology companies compare with their UK-based revenue.
Amendment 10, in clause 2, page 1, line 7, leave out from “tax” to end and insert
“may be charged for the financial year 2020 if the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is, prior to 6 April 2019, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a review of the Commissioners’ effectiveness at applying General Anti-Avoidance Principles with reference to corporation tax collection.”.
This amendment requires a review of the effects of HMRC’s effectiveness in applying General Anti-Avoidance Principles with reference to corporation tax collection.
Amendment 11, in clause 2, page 1, line 7, leave out from “tax” to end and insert
“may be charged for the financial year 2020 if the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is, prior to 6 April 2019, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a review of the current UK tax gap in respect of corporation tax applying globally agreed avoidance measures to multinationals with UK-domiciled subsidiaries.”.
This amendment requires a review of the effects of the current UK tax gap in respect of corporation tax applying globally agreed avoidance measures to multinationals with UK-domiciled subsidiaries.
Clause stand part.
Peter Dowd
In speaking to amendment 8, I will also speak to amendments 9, 10 and 11, each of which we will press to a vote.
Clause 2 enacts the continued charging of corporation tax. As the explanatory note says, the clause
“charges corporation tax for the financial year beginning 1 April 2020 ...Parliament charges CT for each financial year. This clause charges CT for the financial year beginning 1 April 2020. The rate of CT for the financial year 2020 was set at 17% in Finance Act 2016 Part 2 section 46.”
As I indicated earlier, it is vital to hold the Government to account on the matter of their treatment of corporation tax. The Government have offered huge tax breaks to big business even during their continued programme of austerity, which only two weeks ago the special rapporteur described as causing “misery”. It is important to set that context in relation to our amendments. The Government have slashed—that is the word—the amount of corporation tax paid, with a commitment to continue to cut big company taxes further. By 2020, 11% will have been cut from the main rate.
The main rate of corporation tax applies to companies with profits over £300,000—these are not small family businesses, but big corporations of the sort that we have all come to know, because they play a significant part in our economy. There is no criticism of that, but there is a balance to be drawn.
The main rate started at 28% in April 2010. It was reduced by the former Chancellor to 26% in April 2011 and then was reduced again to 24% in 2012 and 23% in 2013, before reaching 20% in 2015. It was cut further, to 19%, in 2017 with a view to reaching 17% by 2020. As of last year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that, compared with 2010, those cuts were denying the country £16.5 billion a year in tax revenue. That will increase if the Government stay in power long enough to push the rate down to 17% by 2020.
The Government have already been criticised by tax experts about the matter, which to some extent takes us back to our debate about the ability to tease out the issues. For example, Bill Dodwell, the former head of tax policy at Deloitte—not a company considered to be particularly socialist—said:
“Nobody seems to welcome the cut to 17 per cent.”
The British Chambers of Commerce has called for a pause to the corporation tax giveaways. When corporations’ own trade associations are making that point, it indicates that something might not be quite right. If it is important that we are all in this together, we must all be in it together on this matter too, and corporations should not be outside that.
We seek to take stock of the Government’s policy, which many people describe as corporate welfare, in the context of eight painful years of austerity for some of the poorest in our society and following numerous criticisms of the corporation tax policy by those who will benefit from it. Will the Minister help us to understand the Government’s position by addressing those criticisms in turn? Perhaps the Government might wish to introduce a review of corporation tax changes since 2010, so that we can get to the bottom of this important matter. After all, in eight years under the Government, corporation tax giveaways are likely to amount to hundreds of billions of pounds, while the number of people in poverty has risen to 14 million. A review of the matter would also help us to compare the Government’s actions with Labour party policy, which is to reverse the cuts and invest the money elsewhere.
Let us have a review to tease out the issues, because £16.5 billion works out at more than £25.5 million per constituency in the UK. The combined total cut from the constituencies of Conservative members of this Committee amounts to £228 million; it is important that the figures are put in context, because that translates to a lot of schools and hospitals that they are prepared to sacrifice.
Along with the important matter of what has happened to corporation tax since 2010, we must also draw a link between the Government’s cuts to corporation tax and their wider programme. In our view, there has been economic mismanagement, but we are not necessarily here today to talk about that.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman asserts figures such as £16.5 billion, but does he accept that the tax rate has a dynamic effect on the amount generated for the Exchequer? It is all very well to cite a number as a static figure and say, “Actually, Labour party policy will double the amount we get,” but does he accept that there is a relationship between the rate and the amount that the Exchequer generates because of increased economic growth?
Peter Dowd
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which I will address later in my remarks, and which we can tease out across the Committee if we want.
For Members who do not know, labour productivity is calculated by dividing output by labour input. Output refers to gross value added, which is an estimate of the volume of goods and services by an industry, and in aggregate for the UK as a whole. Labour inputs are measured in terms of workers, jobs—“productivity jobs”—and hours worked, or “productivity hours”.
The cuts to corporation tax have done nothing to improve our productivity. The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden may wish to listen to that point, so I will repeat it: the cuts to corporation tax have done nothing to improve our productivity. That strikes at the heart of the Government’s failure on the issue. In fact, the economic statistics centre of excellence and the centre for macroeconomics at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research published a study this year of Britain’s very poor productivity. That brings us to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, because one would assume that as a result of the tax cuts, more would be invested and productivity would rise—but that has not happened. The Government have argued that those corporations now receiving significant sums in tax cuts would invest in our economy and drive their business models forward, thus increasing UK productivity. Unfortunately, the 2018 paper shows that the billions of pounds of giveaways have not had a positive productivity effect. To deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, that paper says:
“Average annual…productivity growth was 2.5 percentage points lower during the period 2011-2015 than in the decade before the financial crisis…in 2007. We find that several years on from the financial crisis stagnation remains widespread across detailed industry divisions, pointing to economy-wide explanations for the puzzle. With some exceptions, labour productivity…lost…momentum in those industries that experienced strong growth before the crisis. Three fifths of the gap is accounted for by a few industries that together account for less than one fifth of market sector value added. In terms of why we observe continued stagnation, we find that capital shallowing has become increasingly important in explaining the labour productivity growth gap in service sectors, as the buoyancy of the UK labour market has not been sufficiently matched by investment…The collapse in labour productivity growth has been more pronounced in the UK than elsewhere”
notwithstanding those major cuts in corporation tax.
Anneliese Dodds
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a contradiction in Government policy? They appear to believe that cutting corporation tax rates will lead to a higher activity rate and a higher investment rate—as he said, that has not been the outcome—but when it comes to social security, the assumption appears to be that cutting the rate of income that people can take home by having a high taper rate, for example, will necessarily lead to a higher work rate. Actually, the evidence shows that the vast majority of people on social security want to work and there is no evidence that they do not want to. The psychological approach to corporations—that if they give them more corporate welfare, they will work harder, although the evidence does not indicate that that is the case—seems to be very different from the approach to social security recipients, where the view is that if they reduce their income they will work harder, when actually most people want to work.
Peter Dowd
I do not want to introduce Gilbert and Sullivan, but the point is that it is a topsy-turvy world where cash for corporations equals productivity, when it does not, and cuts to welfare equal productivity, when they do not. It is not as simple as that and I am afraid that the Government’s rather one-dimensional approach does not work. That report shows that the billions handed to those big companies by the Government have not had the required effect on business investment to drive up productivity. The facts are there for everybody to see. No doubt, if we had had some experts here, we could have teased that out a bit more.
Bim Afolami
The hon. Gentleman has focused on domestic business investment, but would he not accept that having an attractive corporation tax regime and providing a business-friendly climate also helps with foreign direct investment? Britain is still a world leader in that.
Peter Dowd
Yes, but there is not necessarily a causal link there. The reality is—[Interruption.] Let me tease that out. The evidence does not suggest that, as I have tried to point out. The German economy is 35% more productive, because investment in it is significantly better than investment in this country’s economy. We are having a debate at the moment about the question of uncertainty in relation to Brexit, which is probably having a more significant effect than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The bottom line is that the idea that cutting corporation tax per se will lead to growth in the economy has not proven to be the case. The economy is still flatlining, despite those cuts to corporation tax. The best part of half a billion pounds is still sitting in corporate bank accounts not being invested, despite corporate tax cuts.
Jonathan Reynolds
This is exactly the sort of conversation that we should have, and exactly what the Finance Bill should talk about. International competitiveness is not only an issue of tax rates; I think we all agree on that. We absolutely recognise that the tax rates on corporate taxation are part of that, but there is at the minute a very poor argument for the UK’s being such an outlier among developed nations and continually cutting its rate of corporation tax for diminishing returns, as my hon. Friend has said, when our public services are in dire need, our infrastructure needs are huge and our skills base is being eroded. All of those impact on competiveness as well. It is the balance that we have to get right.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes an important point: we have to have a balance. The massive cuts in corporation tax—sequentially, over several years—have not had the required effect. If they did, there is an argument to be had, but they have not. There does not appear to be any evidence that that is the case, so it begs the question why. If the Government are trying to make a rational case for it, they have singularly failed and it is time to have another look.
The Government once had a plan to tackle, for example, productivity in 2016 when they tried to maintain that there was an agenda beyond austerity, but that has not been the case. Sadly, the plan was not to reverse the corporation tax cuts and invest in the economy, but simply to push on. As a result, the plan was roundly criticised. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said
“we question whether the document has sufficient focus and clear, measurable objectives to be called a ‘plan’. This broad and expansive document represents more of an assortment of largely existing policies collected together in one place than a new plan for ambitious productivity growth.”
That plan was the best attempt so far and it has singularly failed. That is why we will continue to press the Government on the true cost of corporate giveaways both in terms of the tax forgone and their effectiveness.
Amendment 8 requires a review of the effects of corporation tax receipts of multinational companies compared with their UK-based revenue. That is a perfectly reasonable approach in the round—it is not just one-dimensional. The Financial Times reported last year that multinational companies avoided paying as much as £5.8 billion tax in 2016 by booking profits in overseas entities. It reported that that represented almost a quarter of the tax underpaid by large corporations last year. In addition to an apparent avoidance of tax, they also get a tax reduction. It is a great life if you can get it: do not pay tax and get rewarded with another tax cut. If only we could all do that, although I suspect none of us would want to.
Sadly, the situation does not seem to have improved under the Government’s plans, despite the warning signs. The Times reported two weeks ago that HMRC is now chasing £28 billion in unpaid taxes from multinationals. The Government’s response was to give them some more. It is a bizarre approach when they owe £28 billion, or when HMRC is chasing £28 billion. I assume colleagues in HMRC do not simply go around chasing £28 billion for the fun of it, and instead do it because there is a requirement and we need the tax, and importantly because companies should pay their fair share. That represents a 50% increase in avoidance over four years. While the Government give corporations tax cuts, the corporations appear to say, “Thank you very much; we will carry on doing what we usually do and avoid our taxes.”
The problem stems from transfer pricing, which refers to the charges made between different parts of a multinational business for goods, services or intangible assets, including intellectual property, for example. Tax rules provide that transactions between connected parties should be taxed as if they were on arm’s length terms. In recent years, multinationals have been accused of arranging their transfer pricing to minimise their tax liabilities in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, which accounts for billions of missing tax in the UK.
The Conservative party not only wants to give the wealthiest a tax break but it does not seem too bothered if they give it to others such as corporations that do not necessarily need it. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East said, that rule applies only to powerful interests and not to the working single mother who pays in full every single month.
Bim Afolami
The hon. Gentleman uses the word “corporations” pejoratively and then mentions the hard-working single mother. Does he accept that the hard-working single mother might also run a small business? Why did the Labour manifesto commit to increasing corporation tax on small businesses as well as on multinationals?
Peter Dowd
I started my comments by welcoming the role that corporations play in our economy. My use of the word “corporations” was not in any sense pejorative. I have said nothing “pejorative” about corporations. I may have talked pejoratively about those corporations that avoid their tax and I think most other people would, too. Those corporations have a responsibility, and not just legally, to pay tax. I am not suggesting they are evading tax in that sense, but morally they are part of our community. They are part of one of the most stable countries in the world, with a rule of law next—[Interruption.] I am absolutely shocked that the hon. Gentleman is laughing at my assertion that we have one of the best processes for the rule of law in this country. I am sure he did not mean to laugh when I was praising the British constitution—I accept that he did not really mean it.
At the end of the day, the bottom line is that I have not at any time been pejorative, and nor would I wish to be pejorative, about corporations that play their part in society, that pay their taxes, that treat their workers properly and that treat their customers as their first port of call. I would not be pejorative about those corporations, but I will not stop criticising corporations that do not pay their fair share of tax.
To get back to the point, that is why the Government appear to be winding down the diverted profits tax rather than ramping up the pressure on companies that do not pay their way. The review demanded by amendment 8 would strike at the heart of the problem. For too long, the Government have sat idly by and watched the UK being fleeced by many big companies and the public are saying that enough is enough.
On amendment 9, the Government’s blind spot in respect of companies paying their share extends in particular to technology companies. It was reported in The Guardian this year that Amazon had halved its corporation tax despite posting record profits. The article speaks directly to the amendment by saying:
“The company, which has been locked in a race with Apple and Alphabet to be the world’s first trillion-dollar business, revealed that pre-tax profits at its UK business tripled from £24m in 2016 to £72m last year.
The figures were reported by Amazon UK Services, the company’s warehouse and logistics operation that employs more than two-thirds of its 27,000-plus UK workforce, in its annual financial filing to Companies House.
The company almost halved its declared UK corporation tax bill from £7.4m in 2016 to £4.5m last year. It received a tax credit of £1.3m from the UK authorities in 2016, and last year paid £1.7m tax on its profits.”
I do not have the evidence to hand, because time does not permit me to go into all the details, but it would be interesting to know how many of those 27,000 people are on tax credits themselves because the pay they get from that company is pretty low. There is an unacceptable triple-whammy for taxpayers. No. 1 is that some of those companies’ employees get tax credits because they do not get paid enough; No. 2 is that the companies are getting a corporation tax cut; and No. 3 is that they avoid paying their taxes where they can.
Will the Minister guarantee that Amazon will pay a full and reasonable share of tax on its operations next year? I suspect that he is not likely to commit to that suggestion even if he wanted to. What about other companies? Google paid only £50 million last year, despite total sales of £5.7 billion, which is worth repeating. Meanwhile, Facebook paid only £15.8 million in corporation tax, despite collecting a record £1.3 billion in sales. Its accounts show that while it increased its UK income by more than 50% in 2017, its pre-tax profits increased by only 6% to £62.7 million. The Silicon valley-based company’s UK taxable profits were reduced by a £444 million charge for unexplained “administrative expenses”, which is scandalous.
The Chancellor said that he would introduce a digital services tax in response to that flagrant attempt to undermine our tax base. Oddly, though, the tax seemed to bring in only £5 million in the first year and £275 million in the second. Perhaps the Financial Secretary could tell us where the rest is. That seems a pretty pathetic attempt to restore a level playing field in our tax system—the digital services tax is a drop in the ocean. What estimate has the Minister made of the total corporation tax lost to HMRC through avoidance by technology companies? What steps has he taken to work with other nations to deliver a comprehensive response? How many meetings has he had with the European Union since the Budget?
As the Minister knows, the European Union’s approach is much more comprehensive. A Commission press release set out its approach to digital taxation—it is therefore directly relevant to amendment 9. It demonstrates that the EU’s plans are far more developed than the UK’s. It is therefore important that we listen to them. The press release states:
“The Commission has proposed new rules to ensure that digital business activities are taxed in a fair and growth-friendly way in the EU. The measures would make the EU a global leader in designing tax laws fit for the modern economy and the digital age”,
which is what amendment 9 seeks to do. It continues:
“The recent boom in digital businesses, such as social media companies, collaborative platforms and online content providers, has made a great contribution to economic growth in the EU. But current tax rules were not designed to cater for those companies that are global, virtual or have little or no physical presence. The change has been dramatic: 9 of the world’s top 20 companies by market capitalisation are now digital, compared to 1 in 20 ten years ago. The challenge is to make the most of this trend, while ensuring that digital companies also contribute their fair share of tax. If not, there is a real risk to Member State public revenues: digital companies currently have an average effective tax rate half that of the traditional economy in the EU…Today’s proposals come as Member States seek permanent and lasting solutions to ensure a fair share of tax revenues from online activities”
as urgently as possible. Like the European Union, we are seeking to create an initiative
“to reform corporate tax rules so that profits are registered and taxed where businesses have significant interaction with users through digital channels. This forms the Commission’s preferred long-term solution.”
I would like the Government to consider a number of European Union proposals as part of the review, including an interim tax on certain revenue from digital tax activities. The Government could take that issue into account as part of the review, too. I hope they will look at it as well.
Peter Dowd
People will thank me for it—I am sure that is the case—but I exhort people to read that detail, which will give them an insight into a way forward.
The question that a review would fundamentally seek to ask is whether the section of the GAAR that I referred to but will not quote from is strong enough in providing HMRC tax officials with the basis for pursuing corporation tax avoidance. The review would also look at its relationship to the other sections of the guidance in meeting that aim.
A related matter is whether the hollowing out of HMRC has had an impact on its effectiveness in preventing avoidance and evasion, and we cannot ignore that. My constituency, as you are well aware, Ms Dorries, is home to a significant number of HMRC staff, and they have been impacted, as everywhere has, by the Government’s hollowing out of HMRC. This matter should be considered as part of the review proposed by our amendment. The effective resourcing of HMRC needs to be reviewed as well.
Bambos Charalambous
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more senior HMRC inspectors to go after the corporations that are avoiding tax and that without investment in HMRC we will not be able to recoup the taxes that are necessary to fund this country’s economy?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. This is not about the production of civil servants for the sake of it, just having them in a job where they do very little and are not particularly productive. Those civil servants are incredibly productive. There are various figures on the amount spent on chasing tax avoidance: if we put in £1, we might get £9 or £10 back—more according to certain studies. We need investment in the system, so my hon. Friend’s assertion is absolutely spot on. Resourcing should be considered as part of the review of corporation tax proposed in the amendment.
For too long, the Government have asked HMRC to pay the cost of a financial crisis that it had no part in, by implementing cuts in the very Department we need to support if we are to put an end to some of these avoidance gains. The impact of the Government’s austerity agenda was recognised by the National Audit Office, which published a report suggesting that the quality of services provided by HMRC to personal taxpayers collapsed in 2014-15 and in the first seven months of 2015-16. Between 2010 and 2014-15, HMRC cut personal tax staff from 28,000 to 15,000, which has almost certainly had an impact on the functioning of HMRC. The NAO analysis indicates that the quality of services deteriorated, which I do not think is a surprise to anyone. That gives a sense of the impossible pressure that HMRC is being put under and the difficulty of delivering on tax avoidance under the Government’s agenda.
Finally, amendment 11 requires
“a review of the effects of the current UK tax gap in respect of corporation tax applying globally agreed avoidance measures to multinationals with UK-domiciled subsidiaries.”
In respect of corporation tax, there has been some debate about what the tax gap in question is. I start by referring Members to HMRC’s own analysis of the tax gap, published this year. That analysis says:
“The estimated total tax gap for Corporation Tax was £3.5 billion in 2016-17 (£3.4 billion in 2015-16). This equates to 10.6% of the overall tax gap in 2016-17…The Corporation Tax gap for large businesses in 2016-17 is estimated at £1.1 billion. This represents 5.3% of total theoretical liabilities, the same as in 2015-16. There has been an upward revision to the 2015-16 estimate since the 2017 edition of ‘Measuring tax gaps’ by around £0.1 billion due to more recent data becoming available”.
There are around 170,000 mid-sized businesses in the UK, defined as the smallest businesses previously managed by the Large Business Service and the largest small and medium-sized enterprises that were reorganised into the mid-sized business directorate. Corporation tax on mid-sized businesses is about £0.1 billion higher than in 2015-16, and the corporation tax gap for small businesses is estimated at £1.6 billion for 2016-17, which is equivalent to 8.8% of total theoretical corporation tax liabilities. Those figures demonstrate the Government’s failure to apply proper enforcement measures against corporation tax avoidance: even on their own Department’s analysis, billions are slipping through the net every year. A review would be a first step towards ensuring that we applied the proper rules against multinationals with UK-domiciled subsidiaries, for example, and that those multinationals were paying their fair share.
A recent survey by ActionAid showed that eight out of 10 of British citizens want the Government to get on and deal with this issue. The Government are, in effect, upsetting 80% of the country with their inaction on this matter. Quite a significant number of people believe action has to be taken. I therefore call on the Minister to get on with it, accept our amendments and follow our proposal in dealing with tax dodgers at the corporate level once and for all.
Kirsty Blackman
I will speak relatively briefly on clause 2 and the amendment. To begin with, it is clear that the SNP supports clause 2 and we are not going to argue against the Government having the ability to charge corporation tax next year. It is quite important they do that for a number of reasons. One is that, of all the taxes levied upon businesses, corporation tax is one of those better liked by them. It depends not just on fixed assets, like business rates, but on the profit businesses are making, so they feel less unhappy about paying as it is more of a fair tax than some of the others. It is only a fair tax, however, if it is charged and if the companies are paying the corporation tax they are due to pay.
As for the asks being put forward from the Opposition Front Bench on this, the Government should not be scared of publishing more extensive data than they do currently on the tax gap, particularly around corporation tax in this instance. If the Government were to do that, they would be incredibly transparent and, if they are as good at collecting corporation tax as they suggest, that would dissuade other people from trying to dodge the tax in the first place. This would be both transparent and good for scrutiny, while also dissuading those who are looking to see where they can dodge the system. If people knew that corporation tax was difficult to dodge—if the Government put forward that information—they would be less likely to try and dodge it.
On the issue of multinational corporations and what a small minority—by far a small minority, not all of them—do in trying to not pay the tax they owe in certain countries, the Government have made great play of trying to be global Britain and saying that after Brexit this is going to be, apparently, an outward-looking country. Where better to start being global Britain than by making multinational agreements on improving the tax system? That would be good for everybody.
Every country benefits if more of the tax owed by corporations is taken. Coming together with other countries across the world and making that something that the UK Government set out to do in this new global Britain landscape would be really good. This is about not just the Government trying to make trade deals and seeing what we can do to benefit us, but trying to make these multinational agreements where everybody would benefit. Companies looking to avoid tax would know it would be incredibly difficult to do that because countries across the world would come together. If the Government want to lead the world in anything, I suggest that reducing tax dodging is an area where they should try and think about doing so.
The comments from Opposition Front Benchers about HMRC staff were incredibly important. The SNP has consistently made the case against HMRC offices being closed on the basis that expertise is being reduced. I raised this issue during consideration of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. We can see where expertise is being reduced in areas such as Border Force, which previously had immigration-related staff and HMRC-related staff, who dealt with tax issues. Due to the Government’s political priorities, the two were put together. They particularly looked at immigration-related staff and improving Border Force’s capacity in that regard, rather than looking at improving capacity with regard to HMRC staff. In that instance, the Government chose not to increase the capacity to crack down on tax dodging and tax avoidance in relation to customs.
I am concerned that the changes to HMRC offices will result in more issues being overlooked. If the Government think they are doing a good job, they should not be scared to come forward with as much information as possible about this. That would achieve two things. First, it would allow them to be transparent and allow us to scrutinise them and ask the necessary questions, particularly about the tax gap and tax avoidance issues. Secondly, it would mean that people who were thinking of coming here to avoid tax would have that information and would see that the UK was not a good place for that.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Members for Bootle and for Aberdeen North for their wide-ranging contributions to the important debate about corporation tax. As we know, clause 2 brings in the corporation tax charge for 2020, the rate of 17% having been set in part 2 of the Finance Act 2016.
The hon. Member for Bootle referred to slashing tax for big businesses. It is a typical Opposition characterisation of our tax policy to say that the largest companies are being treated to corporate welfare, as he put it, but tax cuts apply right across the board, including to the smallest businesses in our country. Given that we are reducing tax to 17% by 2020 for both small and large businesses, the Opposition’s proposal to increase it to 26% for large businesses and 21% for smaller businesses would represent overall tax increases of 50% and 25% respectively.
Anneliese Dodds
Does the Minister acknowledge that we are talking about profitable businesses and not about unprofitable businesses, of which unfortunately there are a large number in many parts of the country? I am pleased to hear him acknowledge that Labour’s tax plans include a differential rate for small businesses, but surely he must acknowledge the sunk cost in what his Government have done. Through their cuts to central Government funding, they have forced local authorities to rely more on business rates and council tax, so the fixed costs that all businesses pay have gone up.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady correctly identifies that Labour’s position is for small businesses to pay 21% in corporation tax. Given that we are taking it down to 17%, her party’s policy would result in the tax bill for hard-pressed companies on high streets rising by some 25% for smaller businesses—a pretty extraordinary and hefty increase—and by some 50% for larger businesses. One has to ask what the effect of those tax increases would be. They would not drive productivity, as the hon. Member for Bootle would have us believe, but do quite the reverse: they would increase the costs on businesses, increase the pressures to drive up prices for their products and, critically, reduce returns to investors. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of investment in our country, but we cannot increase that by driving up corporation tax rates.
As the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North rightly said, business rates are a fixed cost that cannot be avoided, irrespective of whether a business is profitable, but we are driving those rates down. In the last Budget, because of the prudent stewardship of our economy, we were able to announce a 30% reduction in rates for retailers at or below the rateable value of £51,000. That will take a huge amount of pressure off about 90% of the high street retailers in our country.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful for Minister’s courtesy. The Government would have a strong case if those big reductions in corporation tax had produced a commensurate increase in corporate investment. Surely the question for the Government is this: how come this country still has a lower rate of corporate investment than France, which has a corporation tax rate of 38%? How come it has a lower rate of corporate investment than Germany, with its corporation tax at 31%?
On UK inward investment, if as a minimum we simply matched the bottom rate in the G7, that would mean corporation tax rising to 24%. The point surely is the diminishing return from driving it down and relying on business rates and employer’s national insurance instead. The balance is wrong for the UK economy.
Mel Stride
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the position of the Office for Budget Responsibility on cutting corporation tax rates. It makes a clear link between cutting the level of corporation tax and a commensurate increase in the level of business investment. That is the view of that independent organisation and the information is there for all to see.
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the level of investment in the UK economy. In fact, it is 30% higher than it was in 2010, albeit we have been pulling ourselves out of the financial difficulties we entered at that time. He raises the issue of inward investment. It seems clear and obvious to me that the lower the level of corporation tax, the more attractive that is to companies overseas, who look at those businesses. He suggested earlier that our rate was very low compared with others. America has just reduced its corporation tax rate from 35% to just 21%.
Mel Stride
I will be a little more generous even than the hon. Gentleman and say I believe it is 26%. Whatever the interplay between the rates, the corporation tax rate has been substantially slashed, to use the expression adopted by the hon. Member for Bootle. The Irish Republic has a rate of just 12.5%, which has been a big driver of the differential investment between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.
Peter Dowd
There is always a danger in these situations of comparing apples and pears. This is to compare the largest economy in the world—the United States—which has 50 states and different levels of tax, with this country. On the other hand, the comparison is with the Republic of Ireland, with a population of about 4 million and a gross domestic product significantly below ours. We need reasonable comparators. I am sure the Minister will agree that those are likely to be our European neighbours.
Would the Minister agree that he is missing the point? We have a contention, which I laid out and will not repeat. The issue is to address the amendments. Our argument is that the amendment requires a review of the effects of corporation tax receipts on multinational companies compared with their UK-based revenue. We make our assertions on the basis of independent evidence and say we should let the Government do that, through institutional mechanisms. Does the Minister not agree that that would be a sensible way forward and we can then have these debates again?
Mel Stride
I shall come to the issue of the amendments momentarily. I would just say in conclusion to this debate on tax that it is a dangerous position for the Opposition to adopt. They are telling large businesses and entrepreneurs and the 5 million small businesses up and down the country that a significant tax hike is in theirs and the economy’s best interest when it clearly is not. The clause introduces the ability further to relieve that element of taxation.
The hon. Members for Bootle and for Oxford East spoke at some length about avoidance. The Government have an exemplary record on clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. There have been 100-plus measures since 2010, bringing in and protecting some £200 billion in revenue, a vital amount of money for our public services.
As the Committee will be aware, we have one of the lowest tax gaps in the world at 6% for 2015-16, the last year for which figures are available. That compares very favourably with the record of the last Labour Government—in 2005-06, the figure was well above 7%. The difference would fund every policeman and woman in England and Wales. We recognise that bringing in tax receipts is extremely important.
On HMRC staffing, 28,000 full-time equivalents in HMRC are engaged in tax inspection. We have invested an additional £2 billion in HMRC since 2010 for that purpose. The fruits are already being seen in near record lows in the tax gap.
The hon. Member for Bootle urged us to work closely with the EU on tax avoidance. The Committee of the whole House debated clauses 20, 23 and 19 on control of foreign companies, exit taxation rules and certain anti-hybrid rules, all of which emanate from the EU anti-tax avoidance directive. We have been in the vanguard of the base erosion and profit shifting project, as the Committee will know, to clamp down on avoidance.
The hon. Members for Bootle and for Aberdeen North mentioned digital businesses. We need to understand the important point that, when we look at profits generated by companies through digital platforms and the interaction of UK consumers with them, we are not referring specifically to avoidance—the hon Member for Bootle may have suggested that. We are looking at the current international tax regime and whether it is fit for purpose in taxing that form of profit generation. The current regime basically assigns taxation rights to the jurisdiction when there is economic activity in that jurisdiction, as defined by the buildings, where the intellectual property rests, whether people are employed, where the risks are taken, where the management is domiciled and so on. We want to move to a situation where we are able to tax those businesses because of the profit generation—the value generation—that they are creating, as I have described.
Kirsty Blackman
It would be useful if, after this meeting, the Minister could write to us with details of countries with which he or his team have had discussions. Any other information about the nature of those discussions would be incredibly useful. so that we can be sure that the Government are taking this seriously on a multinational level.
Mel Stride
I would be very happy to do that. The hon. Member for Bootle specifically asked me what meetings I had had about the digital service tax measure. I have had personal interactions with a number of countries. I attended the OECD meeting in Paris some months ago where I furthered and put forward the UK’s position, which is broadly that we should work on a multilateral basis with the OECD and the EU so that we come to a collective agreement. The value of doing that is not limited to the fact that we would iron out any risks of double taxation that would result from going on a unilateral basis. However, we have also made very clear, as the Chancellor announced in the Budget, that we will unilaterally bring in just such a tax by 2020 in the absence of multilateral arrangements. I would be very happy to write to the hon. Lady with further detail on her specific question.
Amendments 8 and 9 seek to make the clause contingent on a report on how the corporation tax receipts of multinational companies and technology companies compare with their respective UK-based revenue. Like most countries, the UK taxes companies on their UK profits and not their UK revenues to reflect their ability to pay. Therefore, the proposed report would have limited relevance to policy. However, the Government have not been complacent about taking action within the rules of the international corporate tax system, as I have described.
Amendment 10 seeks to make the clause contingent on a review of HMRC’s effectiveness in applying the general anti-avoidance principles in relation to corporation tax collection. The Government apply a wide range of anti-avoidance measures, as I have set out, bringing in some £200 billion since 2010. The general anti-abuse rule, or GAAR, has been operational since 2013. Although the GAAR works principally as a deterrent, it has enabled HMRC to counteract the tax advantages that people try to gain by using abusive arrangements. An additional review of the GAAR’s effectiveness would not add significant value. The GAAR advisory panel provides an important safeguard by ensuring that HMRC’s decisions on GAAR cases are informed by its independent opinion.
Anneliese Dodds
On that point, the current incarnation of GAAR is focused on abuse rather than avoidance, as the Minister mentioned. I wonder whether he can clarify something. I understand that the GAAR panel has given 12 opinions, but there are only nine on the website, although in any case that seems a relatively small number of decisions taken. Does he not feel that it would be appropriate to review the GAAR panel’s operations at this stage?
Mel Stride
I do not, for the reasons that I have given. On the matter of how many references there have been, nine in total have supported HMRC’s position. That said, if the hon. Lady has information that suggests there have been 12 referrals, I will look into what might be a further three and what the status of those was.
Anneliese Dodds
I received notice that there were 12 in a ministerial response to a written question that I tabled. That might indicate that the panel did not support HMRC in three cases. If that is the case, it would be enormously helpful for us to know why.
As the Minister knows, when the panel was created, considerable concern was expressed about the variety of its membership. The individuals themselves are obviously upright, knowledgeable people of good standing, but they come from a restricted group of people, many of whom have been involved in devising some of the tax schemes that the panel might be required to look at.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady makes an entirely reasonable request for that information. As I indicated, I am happy to provide it to her. In fact, divine inspiration has just arrived—I have an answer; I knew it was lost somewhere in my mind. There have, in fact, been 12 opinions, all of which have been supportive of HMRC. If she would care for any further information, I am happy to provide it outside the Committee.[Official Report, 3 December 2018, Vol. 650, c. 5MC.]
Amendment 11 would make the clause contingent on a review of how the application of globally agreed measures to combat avoidance by multinationals would impact the tax gap. HMRC publishes annual updates on its tax gap analysis. The corporation tax gap is estimated to have declined from 12.4% of total theoretical liabilities in 2005-6, under the previous Government, to 7.4% in 2016-17.
Peter Dowd
I have a quick question. There is a cumulative effect of the Minister saying to us that there have been reviews on this and reviews on that. The phrase used is, “We keep these things under review.” I completely accept that the Government do that, but —I think I have asked about this before—it would be helpful to find out what the process is for keeping such things under review, other than a Sir Humphrey-type approach, which is to just say, “We keep these things under review,” so we all sit down and think, “That was a good answer,” and forget to ask the next question.
Mel Stride
I think the hon. Gentleman has described the process beautifully. I would add to his observation that we do have more formal methods of engagement than that which he describes. We publish tax information impact notes for every single tax measure and there is the process that we debated earlier for how taxes and the measures in a Finance Act are scrutinised over time, and so on.
To conclude this fairly lengthy debate, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Peter Dowd
I thank the Minister for his response and those hon. Members who intervened to try to tease the matter out. He has not told me, or anybody on this side of the Committee, anything that suggests that the Government take the matter of corporation tax and the need for reviews as seriously as we do, or that gives reassurance to the public out there. While everybody else is receiving a pay rise—just about—after 10 years, potentially on a sustained level, the Government have said that, eventually, they will invest in the NHS, but as those things begin to come through, people are still not convinced that corporations, which many of them work for, are playing by the rules.
The Minister has not said anything that convinces us to the contrary; hence our amendments. If he is convinced of his argument—I have no reason to believe otherwise—he needs to convince not just Government Members, but Opposition Members and the great British public. Some 80% of people do not believe that large corporations are playing fair by the system. Either they are wrong, in which case the Government should tell them so, or they want an eye kept on this issue, which our amendment would do.
I have no doubt that we will come back to this matter in the next Finance Bill, when the Minister and I might or might not be here in Committee. No matter what the Government think, it is not going away—it will come back to haunt the Finance Committee year in, year out. I exhort the Minister to listen to that.
Mel Stride
If it is in order, Ms Dorries, I will give the hon. Member for Oxford East an additional piece of information on the issue of referrals to the panel. There were nine cases rather than 12; there were 12 opinions on those nine cases, all of which supported HMRC. That might explain how I had a figure of nine while the hon. Lady was focused on 12.[Official Report, 3 December 2018, Vol. 650, c. 5MC.]
Anneliese Dodds
How can there be more than one opinion about an individual case?
Mel Stride
I shall write to the hon. Lady on this matter and any others that she wishes to inquire about.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nigeria: Armed Violence (Rural Communities)
(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of armed violence against farming communities in Nigeria.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate—it is of the utmost importance that the House, the Government and the whole international community do not ignore such immense and devastating suffering. I am grateful to all hon. Members for participating in the debate, and I particularly thank the Minister for her esteemed presence and for her informative remarks last Thursday, when she spoke at an event that examined some of these issues, which was organised by the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief.
I imagine that some hon. Members will discuss the Boko Haram crisis, so I will focus on the conflict between nomadic herders and farming communities. According to some estimates, it has claimed up to 60,000 lives since 2001. I would like to discuss the scale of the violence, how to resolve the crisis, and the long-term consequences of failure to address the violence.
For decades, nomadic cattle herders from north Nigeria, who belong predominantly to the Muslim Hausa Fulani ethnic group, have been in dispute over land with predominantly Christian farming communities further south. However, in recent years, the scale and violence of these disputes has escalated dramatically, and we will want to look at the reasons for that in the discussions we have today. As many as 1,300 people have been killed in violence between these groups since January, and at least 300,000 have been displaced. The conflict is estimated to cost the Nigerian economy $10.5 billion a year. It is good to see the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) in his place; he is the Government envoy to Nigeria, so we look forward to his comments. We cannot ignore the impact on the Nigerian economy.
The International Crisis Group has said:
“What were once spontaneous attacks have become premeditated scorched-earth campaigns in which marauders often take villages by surprise at night.”
When we talk about these enormous crises, there is sometimes a danger that we forget about people and their families—we cannot do that. Real people have lost their entire families. Real people have seen their homes and villages destroyed. Real people have been devastated, disfigured and dismembered. In terms of sheer scale and horror, the violence we have witnessed in Nigeria is six times deadlier than the Boko Haram crisis of 2018 —six times more horrible, more horrific, more evil and more brutal.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that the scale of the difficulties, which he has articulated, has not made news? If it were happening in any part of the western world, it would make news.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend must have read the next sentence of my contribution, which says that we have barely heard about this—that is exactly right. That is why we are taking the opportunity today to highlight this matter. The scale of the violence is already extraordinary, and it has the potential to become much worse if it is not dealt with. This is a good place to discuss these matters.
To resolve the situation, one must first have a deep understanding of the drivers of the violence. The single conflict is actually a series of countless, smaller conflicts between many disaggregated, and often rapidly formed, militias. What drives these militias to violence in one area might not drive other militias in a different area, so we probably do not need a one-size-fits-all policy here. We need something a wee bit more delicate to address these complex issues. It is vital to remember the interconnected factors that have encouraged this extraordinary violence: increased pressure on resources, the collapse of traditional mediation mechanisms, and the failure of the Nigerian Government to respond effectively.
In last week’s APPG meeting, which the Minister attended, there was unanimous agreement among the speakers that religion is also a factor in the violence, and we cannot ignore that. They agreed that militias fighting over dwindling resources have been mobilised along religious lines. Some—not all—might be driven by religion, so I wholeheartedly agree with the Government’s previous statements on the issue: we must be very careful not to attribute religious motivations to actors unless we see substantial evidence. However, I would put it on record that there is a lot of evidence that many of the attacks are religiously based, which we cannot ignore.
Many issues need to be examined thoroughly, and the answers might not point to underlying religious motivations, but those have to be considered. The fact is that Christians and Muslims have been attacked, and we have to ask why that is happening. According to some reports, herder militias have claimed at least 6,000 lives since 2011, whereas the number of herders killed is much lower. It is important that such evidence is gathered; one must question why the violence in certain areas of conflict has been so brutal, so devastating and seemingly so one-sided. Why is it that members of religious groups are so often the victims of what is happening?
Some time ago, I was informed by some of the groups I have met and by some people I have met from Nigeria and elsewhere that weaponry seems to be available in Nigeria. They said that Nigeria is probably the arms base for a great many conflicts across Africa and maybe further afield. Some of the militias are using sophisticated weaponry, and we have to ask how they can afford to do that. There are reports of some herder militias using rocket launchers, machine guns and large explosives. Both sides might be using such weaponry, but we hear reports only of the herders using it. Are these weapons extremely cheap on the black market, and which groups are financing the acquisitions? Are domestic extremist groups providing funding to militias? These questions warrant answers.
Reports also point to the difficulty in obtaining specific information about such a widespread and varied conflict. The mainstream and traditional media have been heavily criticised for a lack of thorough investigation of violent incidents. To resolve the situation, there is a great need to combat the spread of misinformation and to get to the truth of opposing claims. I therefore wonder whether the Minister might consider supporting a group of impartial international journalists to investigate many of the stories, as well as media content and contradictory claims, about the many conflicts in Nigeria. I and others in the House believe that it is crucial that such a group is international and independent of the Nigerian Government, so that its findings could not be easily dismissed or biased. It is important that we put that right.
On the motivation of certain militias, there seems to be unanimous agreement that the actions of the federal Government and state-level governments have been woefully inadequate, which is a key factor in the violence. The withdrawal of Government from rural areas has led to a collapse of the rule of law in many parts of the country. Security forces have hardly been mobilised—that is a fact—and perpetrators of violence operate with impunity. We need an active police and army presence in areas where these militia groups seem to roam at will. It is unacceptable that so many people should suffer simply because of a lack of political will to help them. It is imperative that much more pressure is applied by the UK and the international community to get the Nigerian Government to formulate a comprehensive and holistic security strategy that adequately resources and mobilises the security forces.
It is important to acknowledge that once people believe that religion is a motivating factor for violence, policy responses must adapt. My noble Friend, Baroness Cox of Queensbury, recently travelled to Nigeria and spoke to many people affected by these conflicts. They were convinced that they had been targeted exclusively because of their religion. That belief must surely lead to hostility and mistrust between religious groups. There must be reconciliation between them if there is to be peace between communities in the future. Stopping the perpetrators of violence must be the first step, but I encourage the Minister to consider the need for religious reconciliation and tolerance programmes in any long-term response plan. Had we not had peace talks in Northern Ireland, we could not have stopped the fighting.
It is important that we have that verbal interaction, as it will enable us to move forward constructively and stop those who wish to carry out violent acts. There are potential long-term consequences if the violence is not addressed in the short term. More and more Nigerian Muslims and Christians may begin to believe that they are being targeted because of their religion. In turn, that could lead more and more Christians and Muslims to believe that they are engaged in an existential battle. There are already reports that many leaders in Nigeria are calling for groups to arm themselves if they want to survive, so, worryingly, the whole thing may escalate.
We must do all we can to ensure that the violence, which is already at extraordinary levels, does not explode into an even wider religious conflict that spreads across the nation or even the region as a whole. It is sometimes difficult to express how devastating the conflict could be to Nigeria and beyond. What chance do we have of reducing poverty if there is long-term violence and instability? How will people feed themselves if farmers are too scared to go outside or have been driven from their lands? What happens when the hundreds of thousands of people in internally displaced persons camps decide that anything is better than their horrid conditions and turn to Europe in search of a better life?
I am conscious that several hon. Members want to speak, and I want to ensure that all those who made the effort to be here have the time to make a contribution. I repeat that the scale of the devastation is extraordinary, so we must do more to address it. I thank the Minister for the work that she and the Government have already done. We look forward to her response on how we can help the Nigerian Government to move forward and ensure that my Christian brothers and sisters in Nigeria are not persecuted or victimised because of their belief. I want to ensure that those with Muslim beliefs who are victimised, persecuted and targeted are free from that. I trust that the Minister will do all she can, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to wake the Nigerian Government up to this crisis and the plight of their own people. It is infuriating and perplexing that they have turned a blind eye to the violence, which is having a profoundly negative impact on their country and its future. They must realise how the world sees Nigeria.
I thank the Minister for the nuanced and inquisitive approach the Government have taken thus far. I encourage her to continue to strive to find the causes of the violence in the different areas, and not to apply a one-size-fits-all approach. That would not be a good way to do it—the Minister said that last week, but we need a commitment to a strategy that works. I wholeheartedly agree with her commitment to remain impartial and to assess events objectively. In that spirit, I hope she will ask tough questions about the asymmetry of violence and the funding of weapons, even if the answers are inconvenient to the Nigerian Government.
Similarly, I hope the Minister will consider what can be done to help independent journalists enter the hard-to-reach places in Nigeria to find out the truth and build an evidence base. On that point, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that, on 12 December at 10 am in Committee Room 7, the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, will be having a roundtable meeting with experts to discuss the impact that the media have had on the violence.
The fact that people are convinced that they are being targeted because of their religion means that religious reconciliation and tolerance programmes are vital for long-term peace. The long-term consequences of failing to take those steps and address the violence are unthinkable. Instability, displacement, death, famine, civil war and mass migration are all possible outcomes. They are all happening now, and will continue to happen unless action is taken. Now is the time to stop this. We in this House can contribute to an action plan and strategy through our contributions to this debate. I look to the Minister and our Government for answers on what we can do in the future. We must do everything in our power. We must act quickly so hon. Members do not find themselves back in this Chamber 10 years from now talking about all those who have lost their lives and about what we should have done to prevent the situation in Nigeria.
This House has an opportunity to come together constructively to beseech our Minister and our Government to act in Nigeria to help the Nigerian Government to grasp the nettle. In parts of northern Nigeria, Christian and Muslim groups have absolutely no protection. This House is duty-bound to speak up for those across the world who do not have the opportunity that we have. We must not be found wanting. I have often said that we are a voice for the voiceless. Let us be a voice for all these people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. I will not impose a formal time limit, but as a guideline there are about nine minutes for each Back-Bench speaker. Observant Members will have noticed that the two clocks are slightly different, so we will go for the large clock as a guide.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his excellent speech and his devotion to promoting freedom of religion or belief right across the world. Those of us who are people of faith are concerned about ensuring that we do that. We must seek the truth when we speak. The main theme of my speech is that we must find the truth about what is happening in Nigeria, and urge our Government to do all they can in that respect.
I fully accept that the escalating violence in central and northern Nigeria has many complex sources. We have heard that the failure of governance in the area has resulted in a sense of injustice and vigilantism. Population growth, urbanisation and desertification have put pressure on the grazing areas and water sources that the traditional nomadic herders—the Fulani—use.
In our meeting with the Minister last week, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I was pleased that she acknowledged that religion and religious identity form a part of the violence and are a cause of it. My concern is that the role they play is increasing, and we need to do more to recognise that; our Government must do the same and press the Nigerian Government to do so, too. There is a real risk of genocide, if indeed it is not already happening.
I use as my sources of support two reports that have been published in the past week. The first was produced by Aid to the Church in Need and was published last Thursday; I was privileged to attend its launch. Every two years, Aid to the Church in Need produces a report about religious freedom in the world. It is very well resourced, with on-the-ground references throughout. It is a detailed publication, and I hope the Minister will read it. About Nigeria, it says:
“Assessments of the violence have highlighted ethnic differences between Christians and the Fulanis and disputes concerning the grazing of the herdsmen’s cattle but”—
this is an important “but”—
“religion seems to have become an increasingly important factor…violence by Fulani militants in Central Belt has terrorized Christians.”
It says:
“Father Alexander Yeyock, parish priest of St. John’s Church, Asso, gave an interview after a Fulani attack in Easter Week 2018 left two of his faithful dead: ‘The attack has two dimensions. The first is to Islamize the Christian community...The second dimension is that Fulani herdsmen want to confiscate our arable land for grazing purposes.’”
Bishop Wilfred Chikpa Anagbe of Makurdi told the African Christian Network:
“There is a clear agenda: a plan to Islamise all the areas that are...predominantly Christian in the…Middle Belt”.
That is really concerning, and I wonder whether our Government representatives on the ground really have an understanding of radicalisation and the spread of Islamist ideology that is taking hold, not only in Nigeria but in other parts of the world.
The report goes on:
“A core finding of this report is the failure of the international community to recognise the scale of the problem, which is compounded by the inaction of the authorities in the countries concerned… One bishop warned the international community: ‘Please don’t make the same mistake as was made with the genocide in Rwanda.’… Nigeria’s violent hotspot—the Middle Belt—is predominantly Christian, and human rights observers suggested that the militant action there is intended to achieve the imposition of Wahhabi-style Islam. Church leaders suggested that the attackers were ‘jihadists imported hiding under the guise of herdsmen and sponsored by people from certain quarters to achieve an Islamist agenda.’ As evidence, commentators pointed to the swift upgrade in weaponry from bows and arrows to AK-47s and other high-tech arsenal.”
There is more in the report that I cannot go into today, but I hope that Ministers will read it and provide a response to it. One of its important findings—we have heard of this in the actions of Daesh elsewhere—was the way that militant Islam uses women, subjecting them to violence as part of a process of forced conversion.
In that respect, I refer to a report from the charity Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, which was also released in the last two weeks. The charity’s inspirational leader is Baroness Cox, who has had a 20-year involvement in Nigeria and went there specifically to produce the report, “Hidden Atrocities: The escalating persecution and displacement of Christians in northern and central Nigeria”. In the report, she talks about the atrocities that have been perpetrated. This is one example she gives:
“My sister was raped and her wrists cut off before she was shot through the heart. They took my brother, his wife and all their six children, tied and slaughtered them like animals.”
I concur with the hon. Member for Strangford. During a recent discussion, someone from Nigeria said to me:
“The Fulani herdsmen are far more violent than Boko Haram. Boko Haram don’t mess with them.”
In the report, there are many other descriptions of similar atrocities, which are deeply concerning. Yes, there are many reasons for this violence, but, as Baroness Cox said,
“Less well known, however, is the escalation of attacks by Fulani herders against predominantly Christian communities in the middle belt region.”
The Bishop of Bauchi, an Anglican bishop representing many of the worst affected areas said that
“The conflict between herdsmen and farmers has existed for a long time. But the menace in recent times has jumped from a worrisome itch in the north to a cancerous disease, spreading throughout the country, claiming lives and threatening to spiral into a monster.”
The human rights group Christian Solidarity Worldwide reports that in the first quarter of 2018, the Fulani perpetrated at least 106 attacks in central Nigeria. The death toll, purely from Fulani militia violence, stands at 1,061. The Christian Association of Nigeria estimates that between January and June this year, around 6,000 people have been killed by the Fulani. In Nasarawa State alone, in the first six months of 2018, 539 churches were destroyed, and on July 4, the Nigerian House of Representatives declared killings in Plateau State to be a genocide. That is deeply concerning, and there are a number of recommendations in Baroness Cox’s report, of which I hope the Government will take note.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
In the light of Baroness Cox’s report, does the hon. Lady agree that the people of Nigeria—indeed, many people of faith on the African continent—will be looking to countries such as the United Kingdom for a unified response that is emphatic and robust, and which not only expresses solidarity, but takes action internationally to try to bring pressure to bear on the Nigerian authorities?
Fiona Bruce
I could not have expressed that better myself. Indeed, to warn of the risks of this escalating into a serious genocide, there is a responsibility on the part of the international community to respond to the reports that we are receiving. I am particularly anxious that the Department for International Development does so responsibly.
I was in Nigeria in 2016 with the International Development Committee, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who cannot be here but asked me to put on record that he shares the concerns that I, and others, are expressing. DFID representatives and fieldworkers on the ground arranged a roundtable meeting with civil society for us. I was extremely concerned, because I knew even then about the region’s escalating violence and the religious element developing within that, that there was no representative from the Christian Association of Nigeria at the meeting, and it took considerable effort on my part to persuade DFID officials to involve one. Even then, I was deeply concerned that that representative did not have an opportunity to express his concerns about the religious element of those attacks, the nature of which we are now seeing developing in the area.
I thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because in recent years it has responded to many debates in this very Chamber, developed an understanding and demonstrated its commitment to freedom of religion and belief all around the world, but I do not have the same confidence in many of the DFID staff posted around the world. I urge the Minister to ask her colleagues at DFID what their staff on the ground in Nigeria are doing to address the situation and to engage with faith leaders and others to ensure that they can find the truth, which, as I have said, is what we seek to establish in our consideration of the issue. We need to know the truth about what is happening in Nigeria—such as the information brought to bear in the reports that I have referred to—so that our Government has the information and can respond.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. When I give a guideline for speaking, I hope that hon. Members will adhere to it. If some Members go over the time limit, other Members have less time. As a result, I now have to reduce the guideline to eight minutes. I call Dr Drew.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Betts; I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship. I acknowledge your guidance and will try to be brief.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) —my hon. Friend in this respect—not only for securing the debate but for his assiduous questioning. The situation in Nigeria is something that we should be concerned about and we quite rightly highlight it today.
I visited Nigeria a long time ago, in 2006, with Christian Solidarity Worldwide—it is good to see Mervyn Thomas, the CEO, in the Public Gallery—and to my knowledge, this issue is historic. We saw the antecedent of what is happening today. As part of that visit, we went to Jos and to Kano, and we saw, even then, burnt out churches and loss of life because of religious conflict. The situation is complex and is partly about the conflict between pastoralists and farmers; it just so happens that the pastoralists tend to be Islamic while the farmers are Christian. The issue dates back a long time.
During that visit, I met the then Archbishop of Jos. During a debate in the other place on 17 July, which was initiated by the noble Baroness Cox, who has taken a strong interest in what has been happening in Nigeria, no less a person than the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke to alert the House of Lords to yet another attack on the Archbishop of Jos, who is a very brave man. He and his predecessor have been through all manner of conflict and lived with it. We must recognise that it is not just people out in rural areas who are affected; in the cities too there are regular attacks, and prominent Christians are subject to all aspects of that conflict.
I have one simple point to make. Even in the days when I visited, clearly the federal structure of Nigeria meant that much of the power lay in the hands of the state governors. As much as I would say that President Goodluck Jonathan and now President Buhari could do much more—I hope that the Minister will tell us what the UK Government are doing to lobby directly—we must also recognise that the different state governors have enormous influence, even to the extent that when I was there, a long time ago, it was common to hear of some Christian governors helping Islamist extremists because it was politically advantageous to do so. My visit clearly predates much of the terror of Boko Haram, but even then some extremist groups on the ground were well organised. State governors could have done much more to deal with them using the police and, dare I say it, the army, but they refused to do so.
I hope that the Government will say what they are doing to engage with not only the federal President but the state governors, because they are the key to dealing with some of the violence on the ground. Unless we ensure that our lobbying of those people is effective, that violence will continue and get worse, and the Christians—a minority now, sadly—will be driven further and further from where they have always lived and had their livelihoods. I hope that our Government will do that and ensure that this issue is dealt with appropriately. We must stop the violence to allow people to live in peace and harmony, as they have done for generations, and to get on with their lives.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It is also a pleasure to be in Westminster Hall again for a debate on protecting people’s ability to express their religious faith freely, which was initiated by my good friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I know it is rare that we get the chance to hear the hon. Gentleman—[Laughter]—at 9.30 on a Tuesday morning, but it was a particular pleasure today. I make that comment in jest, but the laughter is probably a sign of how often he has managed to secure a debate on oppressed communities around the world. Such communities are often oppressed purely because they have made a choice about their faith, or to have no faith—I am always clear that this issue is not just about the faith that we share.
The problem is, sadly, not a new one. We only have to look at the Open Doors website to see articles from the past few years about Fulani attacks on those from a Christian background. The hon. Gentleman was right to highlight the huge impact not only on people’s freedom to express their religious faith but on the economy in an area to which poverty is sadly not a stranger for many people. Conflict is continuing and feeds into wider concern about the stability of Nigeria.
Some colleagues and Members in the Chamber are old enough to remember the appalling Biafran war, when Nigeria suffered horrendous loss of life. We have seen the impact of Boko Haram and how it has used its extremist ideology to cow people and try to make them bend their knee, rather than make free choices. Boko Haram has also, famously, sought to deter girls from seeking an education. We reflect regularly on the fact that this debate is about groups seeking both to take away religious rights, to force people to agree with their particular faith or belief, and to remove every other right—not only to religious faith but to supporting oneself, freedom of expression, choice of person to lead one’s country and, generally, to living life as one chooses.
People might wonder why this is an issue for us here in the United Kingdom, but some of us believe that it is important to protect the right to express faith and political views anywhere. Most of us rightly take the view that if people cannot do that somewhere else, the threat is always that such an ideology might spread to this country. For me, it is also about the migrant flows towards the Mediterranean. The fundamental reason for much of that is conflict and war in sub-Saharan Africa, which makes people feel that they have absolutely no hope of making a better life for themselves if they remain in their own country, that they might not be able to progress economically, or that their life will be in genuine danger. It is therefore right to focus on this subject.
It will be interesting to hear from the Minister about the Government’s work with the Nigerian authorities to tackle the problem. The obvious question is about what support our military in particular might supply, which is not so much boots on the ground as capacity building. Support to Nigerian forces could include provision of capabilities to do with surveillance and reconnaissance that might not be available to them but are to us. Furthermore, how are we working with the Nigerian authorities to build their capability to strengthen enforcement of law and order? Ultimately, without the ability to enforce the law in parts of Nigeria, problems will remain. How can confidence in the state authorities, which the information we have read shows is clearly damaged, be built up? How can we as the UK work with the authorities to do that?
We can help not only to achieve short-term security but to support long-term development, particularly through our international development programme. It is all very well stopping the conflict today—perhaps with a better security operation, dealing with specific armed individuals, or tracking down where weapons come from and blocking a particular supply—but if the underlying economic issues that drive people towards conflict remain, that conflict will re-emerge in the future. As the UK looks towards a future as more of a global trader, how can we use aid to stimulate trade and, in turn, economic development, which can be as vital to ending conflict as merely carrying out an operation to prevent attacks in the short term?
It has been a pleasure to make a contribution to this debate and, as always, to be in the Chamber with some familiar faces to talk about defending the rights of others to express their religious beliefs freely. This debate shows that the issue extends beyond states such as North Korea, where people face formal persecution by the state they live under; in so many other cases, in particular in parts of Nigeria and the middle east, non-state actors are the source of persecution. How can we work with the Government of Nigeria to ensure that we are not still debating this subject in 10 years’ time?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. We can now go back to nine minutes as a guideline. Hon. Members have been very helpful.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate. It is a great pleasure to participate in it.
I will leap in straightaway, since we do not have much time. I, too, believe that President Buhari has not done enough to focus on the problem. He came to power with a radical agenda to get rid of Boko Haram, and he has been partially successful. As hon. Members have pointed out, however, some Boko Haram insurgents have transformed into terrorists in the country, and they might well be fuelling this particular crisis.
Since we last spoke in this Chamber about the issue, one of the major things to have emerged is the intensity of the problem and of the killings that are taking place. It is always possible to blame the President for what happens in a country, but let us remember that President Buhari faces action in the International Criminal Court for what he has done against Boko Haram. That is quite remarkable, but it is not surprising that his focus has been elsewhere. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) pointed out, the real focus in Nigeria is not the national Administration but the state governorships. I particularly condemn the governor of Ekiti state, Mr Fayose, who encouraged farmers to take up arms against the Fulani herdsmen. That was not helpful—it just increased tensions and killings in the country. We should ensure that we condemn that.
I have said several times in this Chamber that President Buhari was summoned to Parliament and condemned following the recent killings, and that a no-confidence motion was passed in respect of his advisers because they had done nothing to solve the problem. President Buhari was the first African leader to go to the White House, in April. I am afraid that President Trump’s involvement with the situation in Nigeria was less than helpful—he made a rather simplistic judgment and did not put pressure on President Buhari to take action. We need to put pressure on the state governors and the national Government to do something.
One good solution to the situation would be for the national Government not to look at it solely in military terms. I do not think it will be solved by a military operation. It will be solved by political activism. There is a Bill before the Nigerian Parliament, which is known in shorthand as the land grazing Bill, that would allow national grazing reserves to be set aside for Fulani herdsmen to use without coming into contact or conflict with Christian farmers. We should support that and other actions the Nigerian Parliament is taking to solve this problem.
The situation is complex. It is wrong to characterise the conflict just as a religious one. It certainly has strong religious elements and overtones, but it has been going on for many years—it was going on before Open Doors became involved and long before we became aware of it. We can see that it is more than just a religious conflict by looking at the timing of the killings, which increase around national elections. That is instructive.
I always have poverty in my mind when I carry out my work in Nigeria. I am absolutely committed to trying to help the Nigerian Government improve the impoverished situation of many of people. I have explained on a number of occasions that that is in our best interests, because it enables us to prevent mass migration from Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa to Europe, but it is also in Nigeria’s best interests. We need to put pressure on the Nigerian Government and the state governors to solve this problem in order to deal firmly and finally with poverty.
Jim Shannon
Given his knowledge of Nigeria, can the hon. Gentleman see any reason why the Nigerian Government have been reluctant, unable or unwilling to respond to the high levels of violence?
John Howell
That is an interesting question. There is an ethnicity element to it. President Buhari comes from the area that identifies with the Fulani. I am not going to make that point more strongly. I do not know the extent to which that ethnic belonging influences him and his actions. All I will say is that I agree that less action has been taken in this area than anyone would have liked.
Since I am running out of time, let me conclude by saying that this issue is enormously important. I know the high commission raises it very frequently with the Nigerian Government. It is technically outside my remit as trade envoy, but in a country such as Nigeria, one cannot focus on one issue—they all interlock and play a part. I will continue to put pressure on the Nigerian Government to ensure that something occurs to resolve the situation.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank and commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. It was a pleasure—indeed, it was rather humbling—to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who is a true expert on matters pertaining to Nigeria. I certainly do not want to detract from anything that has already been said.
Much was said about the situation in Nigeria, especially in the so-called middle belt, which straddles the divide between the largely Muslim north and the majority-Christian south, and which is the scene of an escalating cycle of violence between settled farmers, who are mostly Christian, and the mainly Muslim Fulani herdsmen. The Fulani are an ethnic group of about 20 million people across 20 west and central African countries. Exacerbating factors include the environmental impact of climate change and the proliferation of armaments—especially those that were looted from the arsenals of the former Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, which are smuggled across the region and used to dreadful effect.
We have already heard that the 2017 global terrorism index estimates that more than 60,000 people have been killed across west Africa in clashes between Fulani herdsmen and settled communities since 2001. The number of violent deaths in Nigeria is again spiralling. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project estimated in a report in the summer that armed Fulani gunmen had killed nearly 1,000 people so far this year—more than Boko Haram. Those killings, which take place in villages and small farming communities, include the cold-blooded murder of women and children, of which we have heard accounts.
The Nigerian Government blame the violence on armed banditry and organised crime, but there are clear ethnic and religious issues at play. The violence seems to be based on economic insecurity, but its root causes run deeper. The conflict is rooted in the complex religious history of the region, going back to the Sokoto caliphate in the 19th century and the missionaries who brought Christianity to the region at that time. The long-standing conflict has been brutal and most inhumane.
Who can forget the atrocities of Boko Haram, which are funded by the most horrific crimes of kidnapping, slavery, human trafficking and rape? In June this year, 86 people were killed and 56 homes destroyed by herders. However, the situation is not without hope. I read an interesting and inspiring story about Christians who fled the scene of an attack. Brutal raiders descended on their homes in the middle of the night, but many of them got away by running for their lives. Shelter came in the form of an imam from the local mosque, who took them in and gave them sanctuary, and protected them within the walls of the mosque. In that instance, the family survived.
That is the paramount value of faith—that in the sight of such adversity and violence we can still see humanity in each other. When we acknowledge our common humanity, we can truly achieve peace. Peace with each other is one thing, but we also need peace within ourselves, which is another transcendent value. Despite claims to the contrary, the central truth of Islam, as with the message of the Christian gospel, is about love for one another and our common humanity.
Jim Shannon
One thing to come out of our recent trip to Pakistan were three words that were used by those of the Islamic and the Christian faiths: love, tolerance and respect. If we get those three things together, and we believe in them and act them out through our faiths, people in society can move forward with respect for each other.
Stephen Kerr
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
The situation in Nigeria is riven with mixed signals. The Government make claims about reduced violence and say that the situation in the north is improving, and a significant amount of UK aid has been spent trying to help the Nigerian authorities fight the insurgents. However, the late Catholic bishop, Joseph Bagobiri, accused President Buhari’s Government of actually siding with the herdsmen, saying Buhari
“unabashedly takes sides with the armed herdsmen, his kinsmen, thereby failing in his responsibility as a true statesman.”
That is quite an accusation, and such allegations of complicity between the Nigerian President and those who perpetrate these acts of violence must be shown to be unfounded, as there is no room for such complicity, if it exists at all. As long as there is endemic corruption in Nigeria, there will be conflict, and if the Government have no moral authority, there is a vacuum into which extremism will step.
The attacks take place on an ethno-religious basis, but there are no doubt also economic and political aspects to them. In a country such as Nigeria, in which 90 million Muslims and 76 million Christians live together, under- standing and tolerance are essential. The attacks will dissipate only when there is a sense of fairness, a Government who have moral authority, and a world community that stands alongside the decent people of Nigeria.
I have some questions for the Minister, which are concurrent with other points that have been raised today. What is the UK Government’s assessment of the situation on the ground in northern Nigeria and the middle belt? What is the Minister’s assessment of the effectiveness of the part played by the UK to strengthen internal security and encourage cross-border co-operation to control the movements of marauding terrorists and the illicit trade in armaments? What are the Government doing to strengthen existing local machinery to support conflict resolution? My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) raised a point about DFID. What are we doing to build sustainable solutions to the issues impacted by climate change? That point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) in relation to the establishment of grazing reserves. Such things would be significant steps.
I will conclude with the haunting words of Lord Alton. Speaking in the other place earlier this year, he quoted the Archbishop of Abuja, who described the escalating violence as “territorial conquest” and “ethnic cleansing”, and said that
“the very survival of our nation is...at stake”.
Lord Alton went on to ask:
“Are we to watch one of Africa’s greatest countries go the way of Sudan? Will we be indifferent as radical forces…seeking to replace diversity and difference with a monochrome ideology that will be imposed with violence on those who refuse to comply? We must not wait for a genocide to happen, as it did in Rwanda. Ominously, history could very easily be repeated.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June 2016; Vol. 792, c. 286.]
I repeat his warning today.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I thank hon. Members for their co-operation. We will now move on to the winding-up speeches, for which there are a good 10 minutes each, and we will leave a couple of minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to respond to the debate.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing a debate on this important and grave issue. I also thank other hon. Members for their invaluable contributions today.
Without doubt, the farmer-herder conflict has become Nigeria’s gravest security challenge. The tensions and violence between nomadic Fulani herdsmen, who are mostly Muslim, and farmers, who are predominantly Christian, over land and natural resources have a long history throughout sub-Saharan Africa. As we heard from the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), and at the start of the speech by the hon. Member for Strangford, there have been 60,000 deaths since 2001, and attacks have escalated dramatically this year.
According to a report released by the International Crisis Group in July, violence between Nigerian farmers and herders killed at least 1,300 people in the first half of 2018 and claimed
“about six times more civilian lives than the Boko Haram insurgency”.
Outside this Chamber, very few people are aware of the current conflict in Nigeria, yet we are all very much aware of Boko Haram. Indeed, when researching for this debate, I found only a small number of articles in the press, so the first question to ask is: why is this conflict largely unreported?
In June, 86 people died in just one incident in Plateau state after violent clashes broke out between farmers and cattle herders, and the violence has continued unrelentingly during the second half of the year. It is clear that this violence has evolved from spontaneous reactions to deadlier planned attacks, particularly in Benue, Plateau, Adamawa, Nasarawa and Taraba states. The conflict’s roots lie in the degradation of land due to climate change, and increasing violence in the country’s far north, which has forced herders south. As farms and settlements expand, they swallow up grazing reserves and block traditional migration routes, and farmers’ crops are damaged by the herders’ indiscriminate grazing.
Three immediate factors explain the escalation of violence this year. First, there is the rapid growth of ethnic militias bearing illegally acquired weapons—that point has already been made. Second, there is the failure of the Nigerian Government to prosecute past perpetrators or notice early warnings of impending attacks. Third, there is the introduction in November last year of anti-grazing laws, which were strongly opposed by herders, sparking further clashes with farmers.
Nigeria’s Administration, led by President Buhari, have been accused of not doing enough to stop the violence. The report in September 2017 by the International Crisis Group analysed the roots of the conflict and laid out detailed recommendations for resolving it. Those recommendations remain largely valid, and I suggest that the Minister reads the report if she has not already done so. It focuses on immediate priorities—tasks that both the federal and state authorities, as well as community leaders and Nigeria’s international partners, must urgently undertake to stop the violence spinning out of control. It recommends that the Nigerian Government deploy more police in affected areas, improve local ties to gather better intelligence, and respond speedily to early warnings and distress calls. In addition, they should begin to disarm armed groups, and closely watch land borders to stop the inflow of firearms. The Nigerian Government should also order an investigation into all recent major incidents of farmer-herder violence, and may need to expedite the trials of anyone found to have participated in violence. They should expand in detail the new national livestock transformation plan and implement it immediately. It is also important that they encourage herder-farmer dialogue and support local peace initiatives.
Where do the UK Government fit in? They can play a leading role in tackling this conflict, and it goes without saying that they must do all they can to put a stop to this violence. Can the Minister tell us today what co-ordinated and practical actions DFID is taking to alleviate the tensions around resources and whether it is providing enough aid to ensure that people are not at risk of starvation or of losing their cattle or harvests? It is important that more resources should be committed to internally displaced persons in Benue, Nasarawa and Plateau states, with special attention to women and children, who constitute the majority of the displaced.
Jim Shannon
I am reminded of the abduction of schoolgirls and young women, probably into forced marriages and forced conversions, which has not been mentioned so far. One young girl who is on our minds and who I pray for every morning—many others probably do too—is Leah Sharibu, who was kidnapped and has still not been freed. I think that the Government need to look at that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree? In her response, can the Minister indicate what help has been given in terms of her discussions with the Nigerian Government to provide protection for schools in northern Nigeria, where people are very vulnerable to abduction and kidnapping?
Chris Law
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I share his concerns and look forward to what the Minister has to say. Over the last couple of years in particular, we have often heard about Boko Haram and the kidnapping of schoolchildren and women, who are forced into marriage and are often never seen again. I particularly want to hear what the Minister has to say on this point.
Can the Minister tell us what action DFID is taking to explore the link between water shortages and climate change and to review UK climate justice policies accordingly? In particular, I recommend that she considers the success of Scottish Government innovations in this area. Can she explain how the UK Government are encouraging and supporting the development of effective Government mechanisms and policies that are able to arbitrate fairly and earn the confidence of all the people of Nigeria in finding a resolution? Finally, what actions are being taken to grow and strengthen the UK’s capacity or the capacity of international agencies as observers, to ensure that such escalations can be reasonably identified in advance? We have heard today about the question of genocide, and it is potentially imminent. The SNP would support the introduction of a 12-point system for gauging genocide risks instead of the traffic light system currently used by the UK.
In conclusion, despite escalating at an alarming pace, the farmer-herder conflict has been completely under-reported, which is why we must speak out more loudly against these atrocities. We simply cannot turn a blind eye to what has become Nigeria's gravest security challenge. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what actions the Government are taking to make sure that the UK is playing its part to help put an end to this deadly conflict and to explore further what is behind the underlying tensions.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your Chairmanship, Mr Betts and to follow the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law). I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for the Opposition in this important debate and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his eloquent and passionate introduction to the debate. It is clearly an issue about which he is knowledgeable and passionately concerned.
I pay tribute to my constituent, Mr John Wilkins, who shares the hon. Member for Strangford’s passion for and interest in the situation. Although many hon. Members in the Chamber have remarked that this issue has not made the news, Mr Wilkins ensures that I am kept well informed of the terrible situation, and he is very grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for calling the debate.
I am grateful to the hon. Members and hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate. I particularly mention the contributions made by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is no longer in her place, who voiced legitimate concerns about the situation developing into genocide and about the role of religion in the violent attacks, which has been acknowledged by many in the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) gave us an insight into the development of the situation, drawing on his visit to Nigeria in 2006. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke about historical instability in Nigeria. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke about the intensity of the problem and the actions of President Buhari, who is facing the International Criminal Court for actions against Boko Haram. The hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, raised the important issue of the role of state governors in facilitating the violence. Finally, the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) spoke about the role of climate change in the conflict and about the illegal supply of weapons to Fulani herdsmen.
It is immensely important that we discuss the intercommunal violence of Nigeria’s volatile middle belt, which divides the largely Muslim north from the Christian south. The area between Kaduna and Plateau states has witnessed internecine violence over the past two decades which has claimed too many lives. As has been noted, violence between Nigerian farmers and herders killed at least 1,300 people in the first half of this year. It has been said that this is
“about six times more civilian lives than the Boko Haram insurgency”.
The fact that this intercommunal violence has claimed more lives than one of the most dangerous terror groups in the world means that this issue deserves our most urgent attention.
As we have heard in the debate, disputes between pastoralists and farmers have historical roots and comprise many issues, such as land and natural resources, as well as the struggle for cultural and religious control. More recently, the effects of global warming have driven much of the intercommunal conflict. Longstanding and complex issues like these will not be solved by quick fixes, but instead will need a collaborative approach to implement initiatives with a long-term focus. This is likely to be a major election issue when Nigerians go to the polls early next year.
I welcome President Buhari’s condemnation of the violence and his commitment to justice. However, it is important that we now aim to achieve solutions to the decades-old conflict that are durable and settle disputes for all those involved.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady reminds me that some 300,000 men, women and children have been displaced. I do not think we can ignore the problems, which are having an impact on other parts of Nigeria as well. People hope to return to their homeland, but just how will that happen? Does the hon. Lady think that the Government should be addressing the issues of the displaced in the discussions with Nigeria?
Liz McInnes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important point, which I think has also been made by several hon. Members during the debate, with reference to the genocide in Rwanda and the situation in Sudan. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some idea about what action the UK Government are able to take to help those who have been displaced. It would be helpful if the Minister explained specifically what assistance the UK Government and DFID are giving to the Nigerian Government in general, to help deal with these violent episodes.
The Minister will know that the Most Reverend Primate set out three recommendations for addressing the violence during a recent debate in the other place. He recommended that the Nigerian Government strengthen their role of enforcing security and local mediation; ensure reconciliation between farmers and herders; and actively and tangibly support regional efforts to combat the effects of climate change, which is exacerbating ancient rivalries. Would the Minister explain what steps the UK Government are taking to support Nigeria in the three points raised by the Most Reverend Primate?
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I am sure it will be possible to give the hon. Member who moved the motion a couple of minutes to respond at the end.
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate, on a matter that he has pursued tirelessly not only in the Chamber but through his role as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on religion or belief. He has demonstrated a long-standing commitment to Nigeria and to the issue that we are debating today. I pay tribute to the wisdom and experience of the hon. Members taking part in the debate, as they have shared a range of perspectives, and made excellent points based on their own engagement with the issue—the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for Henley (John Howell) and for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), and of course the hon. Members for Dundee West (Chris Law) and for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes). I also thank Mr Wilkins for his continuing engagement with what is an important, complex and complicated issue.
We have heard the concern of all the hon. Members who spoke about the current situation. That concern is well founded because intercommunal violence is the biggest internal security challenge facing Nigeria today. In fact, as we heard repeatedly, in 2018, more lives were lost as a result of that conflict than in the separate conflict with Boko Haram. As the UK is a long-standing partner of Nigeria, it is right that we seek to understand the reasons for the violence, and I appreciate and welcome the inquiry undertaken by the all-party parliamentary group.
The key point that I want to make clear, as I did last week when I met the all-party group, is that the situation is not a straightforward, binary religious dispute between farmers and herders or Christians and Muslims, although it is sometimes portrayed in that way, particularly in the local Nigerian media. We heard from colleagues that there are a range of causes. We also heard—and it is true—that farming communities are not the only victims, as the rather unequal media reporting tends to suggest. Sadly, there have indeed been a number of reports this year of attacks by Fulani herders on farming communities in Benue state, Berom and Jos that have led to serious loss of life and deserve clear condemnation.
The causes of the conflict are complex. Herder communities have also been victims of the violence, and both communities are believed to have suffered hundreds of casualties. Colleagues have cited assessments, and Amnesty International assesses that last year intercommunal clashes resulted in about 550 deaths. This year, the number of incidents and the level of violence are rising. Reports suggest that the number of deaths has already exceeded 1,850. The source for that figure is the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project. Incidents have been reported in all regions of the country.
Why is the conflict escalating, and what are the underlying reasons? As we heard in the debate, one reason is that herders, who for centuries have followed ancient migration routes across west Africa, have been forced to divert south, owing to a range of factors including population growth, urbanisation, desertification and failures of governance. That has brought them into direct competition with farming communities for scarce land and water, and their cattle have encroached on farms, causing costly damage to crops. That has understandably led to tensions, then to a cycle of violent reprisals, criminal banditry and cattle rustling. The religious identity of the groups involved is certainly a factor, but again it is not as clear-cut or as dominant as it might seem. Not all herders are Muslim Fulani, and not all farmers are Christian. If religion were taken out of the equation completely, the violence would not go away.
That is because other issues are also involved, including ethnic prejudices, the growing availability, mentioned by several colleagues, of weapons—many of them smuggled through criminal networks from neighbouring conflict zones—and discontent with the way in which the violence is dealt with by the authorities. Both farming and herding communities complain that their demands for justice have not been met. That is feeding a sense of victimhood and encouraging vigilantism on both sides. All those factors and grievances, some old and some new, are fuelled by partial media reporting and a narrative that portrays what is happening as a religious conflict. There is a real risk that the violence could escalate further if it is not addressed effectively.
Colleagues have asked about the role of the UK Government, who are of course extremely concerned about the violence. It is destroying communities and poses a grave threat to Nigeria’s stability, unity and prosperity. It poses significant risks to the peaceful conduct of next year’s important presidential elections; so we take every opportunity to raise our concerns with the Nigerian Government at every level. When the Prime Minister and I were in Nigeria in August, she discussed the issue with President Buhari, and I was able to raise it with the Vice-President and Foreign Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay asked about the defence and security partnership. Of course we have a strong defence and security partnership with Nigeria—specifically focusing on joint work to defeat Boko Haram and Islamic State in West Africa, in the north-east of the country. In addition, we have offered UK assistance and repeatedly called on the Government to demonstrate a clear strategy for ending the bloodshed, resolving the conflict and ensuring that the needs of all affected communities are met.
Jim Shannon
May I ask the Minister, as I asked the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) when I intervened on him, about the abduction and kidnapping of schoolchildren? What is happening—kidnappings and abuse—is abhorrent. I am ever mindful of Leah Sharibu, a young Christian schoolgirl, who was abducted and is still in that situation. Did the Minister or Prime Minister have an opportunity on their visit to Nigeria to raise her case, and the issue of protection for schools in northern Nigeria? I am a father and grandfather and I ask the Minister, who is a mother, what could be worse for anyone than knowing their child or grandchild had been abducted and taken away, never to be seen again.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that case, which, in relation to the conflict in the north-east and Boko Haram and Islamic State in West Africa, would merit a debate of its own. Our hearts go out to Leah Sharibu and the 113 kidnapped girls, some four years after the original kidnapping. Of course the hon. Gentleman will know that the UK is passionate about promoting the value of education for girls around the world, in particular.
Our high commission in Abuja is engaging closely with religious and traditional leaders from a range of communities and faiths. We are working with international partners to support the Nigerian Government in their strategic response, and encouraging them to address all the complex causes of violence. Colleagues asked about the role of DFID programming. Of course that is focused very much on ending poverty and tackling the drivers of poverty. In that context, this year, our programming bilaterally in Nigeria is some £235 million, but that would be added to by the multilateral programming that we engage in through other organisations. The emphasis is on the kinds of approaches known to be best for addressing the causes of poverty in the long term, such as education, nutrition—particularly for under-fives—and healthcare programmes. There are programmes on adaptation to climate change; access to safe water and sanitation for many communities; governance at federal and state level and, for next year, ensuring that free and fair elections are held. Many programmes are about human trafficking. There is an extensive range of DFID programming in Nigeria, but it requires political will in Nigeria. Political will to deal with the situation at the federal level is vital.
We have heard clearly in the debate that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. The causes of the violence vary across all the states, and so must the solutions. I welcome the call from the hon. Member for Strangford for objective journalism to play a role. He will be aware that the BBC World Service is expanding its footprint in Nigeria, based in Lagos but broadcasting on a wide range of Nigerian issues. I draw colleagues’ attention to an important report by the BBC’s “Africa Eye” that was put out recently on the role that Facebook and fake news are playing in spreading unreliable reporting and inflaming tensions in this area.
Jim Shannon
I asked the Minister in my contribution, as have others, whether it is possible to have an independent inquiry in Nigeria, bringing together the evidential base of what is happening and the reasons for it, and then to present that to the Nigerian Government, while ensuring that the inquiry takes place without the overbearing influence of the Nigerian Government—that it is independent, in other words. Is that something the Minister could help us to achieve?
Harriett Baldwin
I welcome the inquiry that the hon. Gentleman’s committee is undertaking, but in terms of an inquiry within Nigeria, which I think he is alluding to, we are exploring options for how the UK could support the dialogue and peacebuilding efforts, working closely with like-minded international partners. That offer is definitely on the table and we would welcome ways of providing constructive engagement on this issue.
Chris Law
I thank the UK Government for the support they give in Nigeria through DFID. The Minister has listed a number of key areas—education, nutrition, health and governance, but also adaptation and saving water, which I want to focus on specifically. A number of hon. Members in this House are concerned about the root causes of the security issues in the north and the bloody violence that has ensued, and I want to know specifically how much of that funding goes toward adaptation and mitigation in the north, and what lessons could be learned about what funding will be needed in future to support a peace process?
Harriett Baldwin
I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, as he will know, the focus on this important area is one where the UK has been at the forefront of international commitments. He will know that we are committed to spending some £5.8 billion on the international climate commitments we have signed up to through the Paris accords. That means that there is a range of programming and we can increase the programming in parts of the world that are particularly vulnerable. I do not have time in this debate to go through the long list of ways in which we work in this area, but he should be reassured that it is an area where UK Government commitments and programming are only growing in the years to come.
Harriett Baldwin
It is almost like a conversation. I give way to the hon. Gentleman once more.
Jim Shannon
It is always a pleasure to be in a conversation with the Minister. One of the things that I and others have mentioned is how different faiths can react better together. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I, along with others in the audience and around the Chamber, see that we need to have that dialogue. Has the Minister been able to have any discussions with the Nigerian Government to encourage that dialogue between Christians and those of Islamic faith? Sometimes when we talk and have a dialogue about things, there is a respect, tolerance and love that come from that. Can I get her thoughts?
Harriett Baldwin
We are exploring options for how we could support that dialogue and those peacebuilding efforts. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the next two to three months in Nigeria are part of an election campaign and that the UK is concerned that the politics around this issue sometimes exacerbates and drives the conflict. We welcome the commitment of both main candidates for the presidency to tackling this important issue.
What we have heard today is that the causes of this violence are many and complex, and have been fuelled by a wide range of factors. We have mentioned over-simplistic media reporting and inflammatory disinformation on social media, the political context and the frustration in communities with the official response so far. As we go into the Nigerian election campaign period, there is a real risk that intercommunal violence will only worsen and become increasingly politicised.
The UK believes that Nigeria needs to put in place long-term solutions and that those solutions need to be addressed urgently, in consultation with all groups. That must be done in a way that respects the rights and interests of all groups and lays the foundations for a sustainable and peaceful future for all Nigerians. I can assure colleagues who have raised this important issue in today’s debate that the United Kingdom Government will continue to support the Government of Nigeria as they work towards that long-term strategic solution to the underlying and complex causes of this violence.
Jim Shannon
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their significant, heartfelt, sincere and conscientious contributions on an issue that touches all our hearts and our persons; that is why we are here. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), as always, for her contribution. I know it is her job to be here, but she is also here because she has an interest in the subject matter, as I know from my discussions with her. I thank the Minister for her response to what has been said on the issues of poverty, education, the environment, land grabs and human trafficking, the escalating violence and the brutality. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) and others referred to that escalation of violence; it is something that we cannot comprehend, but it is even worse than what Boko Haram has done to the Fulani tribesmen. That issue, and the genocide that has taken place, affects us all.
I thank the representatives from the audience, from Christian Solidarity Worldwide, for their contributions. I met the hon. Gentleman many years ago on a trip we had to Egypt, looking into a similar issue in that country, and I know he has an interest in Nigeria. We thank him for his contribution and his help with this debate, and we thank the staff of the APPG, particularly Amro Hussain, for putting the evidence and information together to make this debate happen.
As I always say, because it is so important, this House always shines when we come together, from both sides of the Chamber, and collectively show what we are here for. Our job is to speak on behalf of others, and as an MP, like other MPs in this House, I do so regularly, every day that we are here in this House. Our job is to speak up for those who have no voice, to ensure that those people, our Christian brothers and sisters and those of other religions, facing conflict in Nigeria will know that this House has come together to speak on their behalf and hear a significant response from the Minister to help us to move forward. We hope that over the next period of time, the dialogue we have initiated through this debate will bear fruit and the people of Nigeria will be free from the violence that plagues that country and will be able to have that love, tolerance and respect that we think are so important and that this House often proposes as a way forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of armed violence against farming communities in Nigeria.
Carer’s Allowance Overpayments
(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered overpayments of carers allowance.
I called for the debate because of cases that have started to emerge and reports that there are hundreds more, if not thousands. It was reported earlier this month that George Henderson from Preston, who is 58 and cares for his mentally ill son, who is also a heroin user, is being taken to court for an overpayment of carer’s allowance of £19,500. George was not aware of the earnings limit and claimed carer’s allowance for six years until a Department of Work and Pensions compliance check discovered that he had exceeded it.
Not only was George taken to court earlier this summer, when he was told to pay back £106 a month out of his disability payment, but the DWP prosecuted him again earlier this month under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, seeking repayment of the full amount of overpaid carer’s allowance by Valentine’s day next year, forcing him to sell his house or face seven months in jail. His house is now up for sale, and he faces being unable to continue to care for his son, either because he will have to work more hours—if he can; if he gets the operation he needs—to be able to pay rent and afford a house, or because he will be in jail.
The Guardian reported last month that DWP plans to go back over its records for the last eight years—the period since such a check was last done properly—will result in at least 10,000 cases of historical overpayment of carer’s allowance, with around 1,000 carers facing criminal prosecution. I ask the Minister, as I ask the House: is that the message that we want to go out to carers?
There are 6.5 million unpaid carers in the UK—estimated to increase to 9 million by 2037—who save the economy an estimated £132 billion a year. The “better care, closer to home” model for the NHS and social care relies heavily on unpaid family or friends, in spite of more older people living alone. We therefore need to encourage more carers to come forward who are not necessarily the partner or even the child of the person they care for.
I pay tribute to all unpaid carers. They are indispensable to the person they care for and vital to society. Less than half of carers work, and one in six has given up work at some point to fulfil their caring role. The benefits of their caring roles are well recognised, as are the benefits of work both to carers, in providing some respite from their caring role, boosting their self-esteem and providing them with more interaction with others, and to society, because helping carers into the labour market prevents their skills from being lost. Work also provides income, which is important, as 35% of carers are in poverty, which is 14 percentage points higher than adults overall.
By caring for someone full time, a carer saves a local authority the cost of a care home place, which is about £750 a week in my area in Derbyshire, but much more in more expensive parts of the country. For that minimum of 35 hours of care a week, a carer can receive carer’s allowance of £64.60 a week—about £700 a week less than the cost of a local authority care home. It is also equivalent to, at most, £1.85 an hour, or £3,360 a year, so obviously many carers must work to make ends meet. The person they care for will be on disability benefits, which have not kept pace with the cost of living for people on low incomes, and they will have no way to increase their income.
Most carers cannot work full time so they seek part-time work to fit around their caring duties. That is often necessarily low-paid shift work. A carer can earn a maximum of £120 a week while also claiming carer’s allowance, so their maximum income from both work and caring is £184 a week, or £9,600 a year. It is no wonder that carers are disproportionately poor. However, unlike almost every other benefit and despite the principle enshrined in universal credit, a carer earning just £1 over the £120 threshold ceases to be eligible for any of the £64.60 carer’s allowance. That cliff edge causes huge problems. When I worked for the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, I saw people receiving a pay rise of just 1% or 2% unwittingly going over the earnings limit and being due to repay hundreds or sometimes more than £1,000 in carer’s allowance at the end of the year, causing huge hardship.
There is a case online of a carer desperately seeking advice. They had a 10p an hour pay rise, meaning that they unknowingly exceeded the earnings threshold over nine months by just £1.08 a week. For the extra £42.12 that they earned, they were forced to repay £2,500 in carer’s allowance. How does the Minister think that fits with the principle of a fair benefits system in which someone is always better off in work? The distress that it has caused is obvious from the post. The carer’s partner says:
“We are not criminals, we simply didn’t realise. We have enough to do looking after our disabled daughter, we can’t afford to pay this back, what can we do? Please, please help. Why have we got to pay so much back? Will it be a black mark on our credit rating? Will it be a conviction against my wife, who works in a school and may not be able to do so anymore? We are so upset.”
Their being upset is understandable.
If someone on carer’s allowance earns £120 a week, their total income will be £184.60, but if their pay goes up by just £1, their total income will be £54.60 a week less—just £121. With such a cliff edge, it is vital that carers are well aware of the earnings limit, but there is lots of evidence that they are not. Carers UK does a great job of supporting carers with an online forum on which carers report their problems. It told me of one carer who looks after someone who is severely disabled and who knew that they would earn more than the threshold for two months running. They dutifully contacted DWP to report their change in circumstances, but then received a notice of overpayment over the previous year, which came as a total shock and surprise. They had not realised that they were earning several pounds over the threshold. They are now paying back the overpaid allowance over 18 months while on a severely reduced income, putting them even more into poverty.
When the Work and Pensions Committee quizzed the DWP’s permanent secretary, we were told that a letter that carers receive about carer’s allowance gives them the full information about the earnings threshold and what they have to declare every year. I have with me the standard letter, which has been the same for six years. Yes, on page 1 of that four-page letter it says:
“From 09/04/2018 you can earn up to £120.00 each week from work you do for an employer or as self employment, after taking off certain expenses, before your Carer’s Allowance is affected.”
For starters, it does not set out what the “certain expenses” are, and nowhere that I can find, other than in the regulations, does the Department—the Government—actually do that. The information on the gov.uk website is certainly very unclear, and even when people receive a compliance form to complete, they are simply asked, “What expenses do you incur?” They are given no guidance on what those expenses might be.
The standard letter, which sets out the changes of circumstance that the DWP needs to know about, does not set out that people need to inform the Department if their earnings exceed £120 a week. Yes, under the heading “Changes we need to know about” it says, “When you start work, whatever your earnings, you need to let us know,” but it also says:
“If you have already told us that you are working, you must tell us if your earnings go up or any expenses already claimed change. You must also tell us if you work any overtime or receive a bonus.”
That simply does not fit with the reality of today’s low-paid shift work, whereby people’s hours go up and down all the time. There is rarely a concept of overtime anymore, because people do not have set hours of work. There are very rarely bonuses for people doing such work. The advice fits with a long-gone era in which people had a contract for set hours of work and received extra in overtime. Also, nowhere does the letter say clearly, “If you earn £120 in any one week, you will cease to be eligible for carer’s allowance that week, unless you pay out certain expenses”—with those expenses set out—“and you must inform us.”
It is therefore not surprising that carers are unaware of the rules. Even if they are aware, the letter, which comes from the DWP—its logo is at the top—is signed simply by a “Manager”. It does not inform the claimant that they have to inform the Carer’s Allowance Unit specifically of any changes. Among the examples that Carers UK has come across is that of a carer who said:
“There is a very strong possibility that I have been overpaid Carer’s Allowance for almost three years. As you can imagine I feel sick to the pit of my stomach.”
I am not surprised: they will have been overpaid about £10,000. The carer continues:
“I did not realise that it was ‘means-tested’. I thought because I’d had contact and had updated the DWP when I was moving from Income Support into work that they’d know.”
Claimants are informing the Department for Work and Pensions of their work circumstances, but they are not informed in the letter that they need specifically to inform the Carer’s Allowance Unit.
With the lack of information and the huge cliff edge, it is obviously imperative that the Department takes a responsible attitude to compliance checks for carer’s allowance—there are such huge losses for people if they are overpaid. When I worked at USDAW, we would see difficult cases, but for a maximum of a year. Now, we see cases lasting three or four years and racking up thousands of pounds in overpayments. I ask the Minister: why is that the case when real time information has given the DWP monthly earnings data since 2014? In 2014, the number of cases taken up dropped drastically. In 2011-12, there were more than 30,000 cases of overpayment of carer’s allowance, but in 2014, 2015 and 2016, that more than halved to just 14,500 cases, despite the Department having much more detailed, and electronic, information. Bearing it in mind that two thirds of cases of carer’s allowance overpayment involve earnings over the threshold, it seems like thousands of cases have been missed in the last few years, since the dramatic drop in 2012-13 when cuts were made to administrative staff in the DWP. Staff have been drafted in from the compliance unit in Ramsgate and from pensions offices in Motherwell and Ilford to deal with the backlogs, but those backlogs can now go back over several years, costing carers thousands of pounds. Carers are starting to come forward and, on the evidence seen so far, are being dealt with extremely harshly. A case reported a couple of weeks ago from Belfast was of a carer from whom a payment of more than £14,000 of carer’s allowance is being sought in full by 5 January or—again—they face a jail term.
I have some questions for the Minister. Does he think that the information given to carers about the earnings threshold is clear enough to be fully understood and acted on by individuals who are in a very demanding role and combining that with paid work, while doing all the juggling that people have to do when they are on a very low income? Will the Minister please commit to looking at that information, both in the letters received by all carers and online, and making it clearer? Does he believe that the DWP has used all its ability to seek to ensure compliance with carer’s allowance earnings rules and to keep overpayments to a minimum? Does he think that, in the circumstances, it is proportionate to seek such huge sums from low-paid carers? One compliance officer working in the Carer’s Allowance Unit has calculated that more than 30% of recent overpayments were for amounts of earnings less than 20% over the threshold, so for less than £24 a week, people are being prosecuted for £64.60 a week going back over many years and thousands of pounds.
Will the Minister please look again at the policy for these people who have been overpaid as he looks at the information for carers? Also, I hope that, with a new regime in the Department for Work and Pensions and a new Secretary of State, the Department will look again at the report from the Work and Pensions Committee on carer’s allowance and the cliff edge, and reconsider the possibility of a taper so that we cease to see huge overpayments, cliff edges and the impoverishment of carers, to whom we owe so much.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) for opening the debate. She displays a huge amount of knowledge, passion and care in this area, and she has raised many points that the Government and I would agree with.
Carer’s allowance actually falls within the remit of my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work. There is an outstanding relationship with Carers UK, both at ministerial level and with officials. There are regular meetings with Carers UK, and many of the points raised in this debate have been raised previously and are being looked at and reviewed, so the debate is very timely.
As an individual, I share much of the passion that we have heard today. Not a lot gets me emotional, but I remember, in my early days as a constituency MP, meeting young carers, who are often forgotten in debates about carers. I am talking about children who have often lost the things that we all took for granted when growing up, as they have taken on caring responsibilities. It was a particularly moving meeting, and one that I have never forgotten, so I was happy to step in for this debate.
The Government recognise and appreciate the vital contribution made by informal carers, who provide invaluable support for relatives, partners, friends and neighbours who may be ill, frail or disabled. We also recognise the important role that many carers’ organisations play across the country in supporting carers, including those in the hon. Lady’s constituency, such as the Blythe House and Buxton carers’ support groups, which I am sure that she, as a diligent constituency MP, will have had much involvement with.
The Government are already supporting carers in a number of ways, including through the benefit system. About 850,000 people currently receive carer’s allowance. Since 2010, the rate of carer’s allowance has increased from £53.90 to £64.60 a week, with a further increase to £66.15 planned for April 2019, meaning an additional £635 a year for carers since 2010. By 2023-24, the Government forecast a spend of around £3.4 billion a year on carer’s allowance, which is a real-terms increase of more than one fifth since 2016-17.
Carer’s allowance offers a measure of recognition of the vital contribution that carers make to our society, although we fully appreciate that many make substantial sacrifices to care for their loved ones. That is why in June 2018, the Government published “Carers action plan 2018 to 2020: supporting carers today”, which sets out a two-year programme of targeted work to support unpaid carers. The plan puts a focus on practical actions to support carers and gives visibility to the work already under way or planned within Government.
However, I recognise that there are concerns about carer’s allowance, particularly around earnings and the possibility that a number of claimants may have been overpaid. Again, I pay tribute again to the hon. Lady, who raised some of those issues, which have been raised in the media, through the work of the Work and Pensions Committee and through her own recent, diligent parliamentary questions. It is in everyone’s interest that we deal with fraud and error effectively, preferably by stopping it happening in the first place.
We have been discussing updating our measurement of carer’s allowance fraud and error with the National Audit Office over the last year or so. We now plan to start the measurement during 2019, with the intention of publishing revised estimates during 2020. This is vital, because the last time we did this was in 1996-97. A huge amount has changed since then—not only the technology, but the way people work and their circumstances, as the hon. Lady mentioned. We suspect that the estimate of 5.5% fraud and error, which was set in 1996-97, does not reflect the reality today. The new measure, which will come in next year, can accurately set out where we should be, and where we should then target and prioritise our resources to prevent, identify and counter fraud and error even more effectively and efficiently.[Official Report, 6 December 2018, Vol. 650, c. 12MC.]
However, we are not complacent about fraud and error and already have a number of measures in place to deal with it. We are also reinforcing to carers their responsibility to inform us of changes to their earnings and other circumstances. Our priority has been to try to clear new carer’s allowance claims as quickly as possible, including during a period when the number of carer’s allowance claims has increased significantly. In part, that increase is due to the great work of stakeholders to raise the profile of carer’s allowance. We have also done our part by introducing the new online claim system, which is easier to use and—perhaps surprisingly for a Government online system—has a 90% satisfaction rate, so there are certainly some lessons for us to learn there.
Our performance here has been consistently improving, partly as a result of recruiting new staff—an additional 150 in the last 12 months alone. Many of them are based in the Preston, Blackpool and Swansea offices. I know that the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work visited the Preston office in the summer, in her role as the Minister responsible for carer’s allowance. She was very impressed with the enthusiasm and hard work of the staff.
Ruth George
The Minister says that performance is improving. In what way is it improving? Does he mean that they are now going back over these historical overpayments and requesting them back from carers? Most carers and most people in this House would not see putting right the wrongs of previous years by finally investing in compliance to be a performance improvement, at least not for the carers that it affects.
Justin Tomlinson
I am coming on to what those staff will be doing and the improvements that we are bringing forward. As well as focusing on new claims, we are working hard to reduce backlogs elsewhere in the system, remind carers of their responsibilities and make better use of available technology.
The Department for Work and Pensions takes every care to explain a claimant’s responsibilities when they apply for carer’s allowance. This includes the need to report changes on time. Our annual notifications help remind claimants how important that is. We also provide information on the website gov.uk, while customers who need additional advice can contact the Carer’s Allowance Unit for further information, and we encourage stakeholder groups to help to share that information.
I absolutely understand the points the hon. Lady made about whether the guidance is perfect. When the Work and Pensions Committee raised questions with the Minister, we recognised that there were improvements to be made in this area. We have already made significant changes to the website. I also accept the points made about the letter, which the hon. Lady went through. I will encourage the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work to meet with her personally to discuss the specific points about the quality of that guidance and information. We absolutely have to get that right, and it was a fair point to raise.
The consequences of not keeping the DWP up to date, including the need to repay overpayments, are clearly stated during the initial claim process and in our annual uprating letters. Therefore, every claimant has an obligation to tell us when their circumstances change. As with all benefits, the DWP has a responsibility to recover an overpayment where a claimant has failed to disclose a change that would affect their entitlement. Where there is an overpayment, the DWP will always look to recover the debt through a sustainable repayment plan. Where a claimant is having difficulty repaying a benefit overpayment, they can request a reconsideration of the amount that is being taken. It is also important to note that once a claimant has told us of a change of circumstances, they would not be responsible for overpayments from that date. However, we must recognise that we need to work with claimants to help them avoid overpayment and to ensure that we pay the correct amount.
In recent years, the DWP has introduced new technology to make it easier to identify and prevent overpayments, with cases checked against earnings information held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The new verify earnings and pensions—VEP—system, allows us better to check earnings declared by carers to the DWP against tax records, and it allows staff to quickly take any action to clear up any discrepancies. Where we do have arrears from previous exercises, our priority is to ensure that the benefit is being paid at the correct rate in order to provide regular financial support. Once we have done this, we can determine any overpayment that might have accrued. Even when there has been a delay in dealing with a change in circumstances, as a carer’s allowance claimant can earn £120 net of allowable expenses a week, many of these claimants will have been paid correctly anyway. We will be increasing the carer’s allowance earnings limit again from £120 to £123 a week from April 2019. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that average earnings will increase by around 5.1% between 2017 and 2019, whereas we will have increased the carer’s allowance earnings limit by 6%.
The Government acknowledge the vital role played by carers and the valuable work that carers’ organisations carry out on behalf of carers. We recognise that the UK’s 6 million carers play an indispensable role in looking after friends or family members who need support, which is why it is so important that carers should continue to have access to a dedicated benefit that recognises their particular contribution to society. Our staff work hard to support carers and pay people the right entitlement. I know that the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work is very passionate about this, and it is a real priority for her. Equally, there are improvements in place that mean that we are tackling arrears and have a much smoother process for taking account of any earnings changes going forward. I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the chance to talk about carer’s allowance.
Question put and agreed to.
Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit: Two-child Limit
(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the two child limit in universal credit and child tax credits.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. It is surreal still to be here debating the two-child limit in universal credit and child tax credit. When I saw the limit and the cruel and pernicious rape clause that stands part of the policy laid out in the Chancellor’s Budget in 2015, I was sure that I had made a mistake. After all, no humane Government would propose such a blunt instrument as limiting support to the first two children in a family, or making a woman prove that she has been raped just to put food on the table.
Unfortunately, I was wrong. It is three years, four months and 20 days after that Budget, and the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has found that the UK Tory Government is exactly such an inhumane Government. Despite warnings from all manner of groups, cross-party support and U-turns on other policies over the years, the two-child policy is apparently the one that the UK Tory Government will stick to through thick and thin.
The policy stands in judgment on people’s lives and suggests that those who are less well off
“cannot have as many children as they like”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 24 October 2018; c. 52.]
as Tory social security spokesperson Michelle Ballantyne MSP said. The policy is damaging in the extreme, and I will outline to the Minister exactly why. I would also like to give him the opportunity to think again before the policy hits its next phase in February.
From February, all new claims will be subject to the two-child policy, regardless of when children were born. That means that, although someone might have planned their family in good times, when they could well afford to support three children, the UK Tory Government do not care—they will support only two. Life is unpredictable: it only takes somebody to get ill or die, a partner to leave, or someone to lose their job for life to turn upside-down. We note the plight of the Michelin workers in Dundee, who were not expecting to lose their jobs. None of us would be prepared for such eventualities.
Contraception can also fail. I note research from the Advisory Group on Contraception, which has produced stark figures on cuts to sexual and reproductive health services in England, so help is being lost to many on the ground. I challenge any hon. Member present to plan out exactly and specifically the financial situation for them and each of their children up to the age of 18. It is impossible.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My hon. Friend has been a tireless champion of tackling this issue. Does she agree that cutting child tax credits is tantamount to directly targeting children with austerity?
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely agree. It breaks the link between need and what somebody receives. These families are no less in need, but their money is being cut.
It is impossible for just about anyone, other than the super-rich and perhaps the royal family, to make plans in the way I described. The UK Tory Government are hacking away at the safety net that a social security system ought to be.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Women are carrying the brunt of austerity—let us be frank about that—whether we are talking about nursery provision, tax credits or the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. The list is endless. Women have made a major contribution in terms of austerity, in the sense that they have carried the burden of the £14 billion of tax adjustments. It is the same with the WASPI women and the savings that have been made on their pensions.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The Womens Budget Group has found that 86% of welfare cuts have come out of women’s pockets. The Government are taking a gendered and targeted approach, and they should be wary of that.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
The charity Refuge found that the two-child limit is forcing domestic abuse survivors and their children into poverty as a result of an increased financial dependence on their perpetrators. Does my hon. Friend agree that women are ultimately fearful to leave abusive relationships because they cannot support themselves, and that that is another example of where the policy has gone wrong?
Alison Thewliss
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will talk about some of Refuge’s evidence later, because it is stark and the Government should take heed of it.
A social security safety net ought to be there for everybody—each one of us—when they need it, but by April 2018, the two-child limit had already affected 73,530 households. Well over half of those households—43,420 of them—were in work, so I will not have it if the Minister, or anybody else on the Tory Benches, which I note are remarkably empty, gives us the old Tory trope that the policy is about people on benefits making the same choices as those supporting themselves solely through work. The benefit is designed to give people in the lowest-paid work a top-up, to help support them and to make sure that their children are fed and clothed.
Of those 73,530 households, 2,900 were able to keep their entitlement for a third child by claiming an exemption to the policy. There are largely three exemptions to the two-child limit. None of them is entirely logical, and I would recommend that hon. Members check out the Child Poverty Action Group’s page on the exemptions to see how mind-bendingly arcane they are.
The first exemption is the rape clause. I put on record again my absolute disgust at a policy that forces women to fill out a form to say that they have conceived their third child as a result of rape. It is absolutely inexcusable as a policy. For someone to have to put their child’s name on a form and say that they were conceived as a result of rape is beyond contempt, and the Government should know better than to treat women in that way. We know from the figures that, up until April, 190 women across the UK claimed under that exemption. That is 190 women who have had to replay the most traumatic experience of their life to put food on the table. The Government should hang their head in shame.
The second exemption is for twins, but it is not as simple as it ought to be. It applies if twins are born after a single birth, but not before. If someone has twins after two previous children, only one twin is eligible for payment, but both those twins need to eat. There may be two almost identical families with three children—one that had twins and then a single birth, and one that had a single birth and then twins—but only one is worthy of support from the Government, which is completely illogical.
The third exemption is for adoption, but not if someone has adopted from abroad or if they were a step-parent before they adopted the third child, so that is not simple either. An additional exemption has been made for kinship care. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who successfully campaigned for that on behalf of her constituent Alyssa Vessey, who lost an entitlement for her own child after taking on caring responsibilities for her three younger siblings. The clear result of the policy and the exemptions is discrimination. Families may have similar circumstances and needs, but some will lose out simply due to the order in which their children were born—something that those children certainly have no control over.
I understand that CPAG will be back in court on the issue before Christmas, and I wish it the very best with its case. It believes, and I agree, that the two-child limit breaches articles 8 and 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is also beyond me how the limit could possibly be compliant with the UK Government’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child.
There will also be an impact on blended families and families who may be encouraged to separate to avoid being hit by the limit. A friend also pointed out that women who have children from previous relationships will be caught should they wish to have a child with a new partner, which is very common, whereas the male partner may be able to go off and start a new family more easily without having the children with him.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Is it not depressing that we have debated this issue two Tuesdays in a row? I thank the hon. Lady for coming to the all-party parliamentary group on single parent families. She talked about blended families, which will be hit hardest. The Government abolished the cross-departmental work on child poverty; they are trying to abolish these things, but they have really mismatched priorities. The churches have been very vocal about it, and the Bishop of Oxford spoke last week. Does she have any comment about that?
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely agree, and I commend the hon. Lady and her colleagues for their work in the all-party parliamentary group on single parent families, because those families will be hugely hit by this. It provides huge disincentives for those families to go into work or to progress. It simply puts them further into poverty and makes it harder for them to get out of that poverty.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she agree that this obscene policy is fuelled by the Government’s abolition of the child poverty target, which would have compelled them to look at such policies and realise that they could not possibly be compatible with such a target?
Alison Thewliss
Absolutely. I will return to the issue of the policy’s objectives and how unmeetable they are, given the child poverty that will result from the policy.
It is absolutely clear that nothing in the policy fits with the Government’s objective of giving people a more stable family life. In fact, it plunges families further into uncertainty and crisis, and puts them under tremendous strain.
It is also clear that it will be children who lose out as a result of this policy. It is estimated that this policy will affect—in time, when transitional protections run out—around 3 million children. The Church of England estimates that in my constituency alone 1,600 families and 5,500 children will be affected, which amounts to 36% of the children there. I cannot begin to say what impact this policy will have on the health, education and life chances of those young people.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Once again, my hon. Friend is making a passionate speech on this issue. Does she share my concerns that there is another issue here, namely that families expecting a third child might be forced to have an abortion as a result of this policy? Often, those are people in faith communities, who are likely to have larger families.
Alison Thewliss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there is clear evidence on this issue, which I will touch on later in my speech. The ends that this Government are forcing families into, and the decisions that those families are being forced to make, are really disturbing.
The cut in this benefit is £2,780 per child, per year, which is a sum that families will struggle to make up through taking on extra work. The Church of England calculates that a single parent with three children who is working 16 hours at the minimum wage—I should say the Chancellor’s pretendy “living wage”, because it is not an actual living wage that one could live on—would need to work 45 hours to compensate for the loss of income and for this Government’s cut. That is assuming that work is available to them in their community and that their children can be looked after by somebody when they are not home. If not, who will do the homework with those children? Who will tuck them into bed at night? Who will make sure that the family is looked after? And what is the mental health impact on that family and the impact on the physical health of the parent, who will be absolutely exhausted after working 45 hours a week and looking after three children, which is a job in itself? The impact on family life must be taken into consideration by the Minister.
There are also real disincentives within this policy, because it will be much harder for families to move into work. The policy will take away the incentive to try to get around the benefit cap, as families will end up losing more if they try to work more.
There is also a disproportionate hit on particular minority groups. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has found that families of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin are particularly badly hit by this policy, losing thousands of pounds. For years now, I have been flagging up concerns that 60% of Muslim families and 52% of Jewish families have more than two children. There are also concerns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) mentioned, among religious faiths that will not use contraception for moral reasons and clearly cannot access abortion services. Therefore, they have very little choice in the decisions that face them.
Of course, this is a particular issue for women in Northern Ireland, where family size is traditionally larger than in the rest of the UK and where, as we in this House well know, women cannot access abortion services on the same basis as we can here. I wonder what the Minister expects women to do in such circumstances.
I want to mention a further point about abortion, because it is becoming the reality for many women. I would like to read directly from the testimonies of women who have spoken to the benefits helpline, Turn2us, because they are absolutely stark and I want the Minister to pay particular attention to them. One woman said she had
“to have an abortion as”
she “can’t afford” another child. Another said:
“It makes me want to give up my child for adoption.”
Another woman said she was:
“already due another baby when the new tax credit cap came into play. Now I worry I can’t afford to budget for a baby as I won’t get any extra help.”
Another said:
“I found out I was 5 months pregnant and now in a complete panic. I’m too far on for an abortion but I have no way of supporting this child. I was taking precautions and definitely did not plan or expect to have any more children. The marina coil is meant to be more effective than being sterilised.”
One woman said she was
“worried that I will not be able to afford the child. I am pregnant at the moment but I am worried it may be twins.”
Another woman said:
“I was already pregnant so I could not reconsider.”
Another said:
“I didn’t plan this child but it’s beaten all the odds to get here and I believe in things happening for a reason and also do not believe in abortion, so here we are expecting our 3rd child any day and no help financially. I have worked since I was 15 years old and I can’t get help when I need it.”
Another woman said:
“This was a surprise and an unplanned pregnancy and I only found out at 20 weeks that I was pregnant due to an NHS mistake and I don’t have the money to raise a child. But due to religious reasons I cannot terminate the pregnancy, especially this far along.”
How can the Minister possibly justify that? Could he look each woman in these circumstances in the eye and tell them that this policy is about fairness?
Furthermore, Refuge has outlined the risk of this policy to women who are at risk of domestic violence, because the two-child limit exacerbates the control that perpetrators of abuse have over a woman and puts more pressure and risk on the woman. [Interruption.] I would like to share that experience, too, with the Minister, if he wants to stop shuffling his papers and pay attention. Refuge has said:
“Women have felt more trapped and unable to stay as there was no available money to help them move and leave. The 2 child cap means that some women will be pressured into having more children and becoming financially reliant on the partners for support.”
One resident said that
“whilst pregnant with a 3rd child her ex demanded she have an abortion because he said they could not get any more money for it and when she said she didn’t”
want one
“he tried being violent to enforce a miscarriage.”
Refuge also said:
“Women struggling to manage after fleeing if they have three children feel like they have no support and no money to support the family. It means they feel like they should stay or return to the perpetrator.”
I remind Members that the rape clause form itself states that women are not eligible for support if they are living with the father of the child, which forces women to leave their home before they can do so safely, and we all know that the evidence suggests that that is the most dangerous time—the time that women are most likely to be murdered—if they leave without any kind of safety planning.
Before I finish, I want to tackle the suggestion that the Scottish Government should set about mitigating the two-child limit. First of all, we do not have full control over the welfare benefits system. Why not? Because Labour, through the Smith Commission, would not trust us to have it. We therefore end up being lumbered with a system that Scotland did not design, with policies that Scotland did not vote for, and with the ability only to tinker round the edges, thanks to the work of the Labour party.
For those on child tax credits, which is still the majority of people within the system, we have no way of mitigating these things, because that is a function of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. For universal credit, at the moment we have “administrative flexibilities”. The Scottish Government have changed payment schedules and allowed for direct payment to landlords and separate payments to tackle financial abuse. However, the use of those flexibilities incurs a payment to the Department for Work and Pensions for the administration of them—money I am sure all of us agree could be spent directly on the frontline.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I want this policy to go everywhere and not just throughout Scotland. I have campaigned on a cross-party basis to that end, particularly for women in Northern Ireland, who have often been unrepresented in this place and who have to fill out a separate rape clause form, because they were at risk of prosecution just for filling out the original form. That is why I want to make sure that no woman in the UK gets left behind by this policy. We should be campaigning against this Tory Government and focusing all our fire on the Conservative party, which wants to make women go through this trauma.
However, let us not forget that the Labour party’s official position back in 2015 was to support the two-child limit. Perhaps if Labour Members had voted with us back then on the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, we would not be here—three years, four months and 20 days later—discussing this issue today.
Alison Thewliss
I am coming to the end of my remarks; I am sure that Members will get in later with what they want to say.
All of this policy is illogical and bad for the economy. In other parts of my casework, I see working people being denied leave to remain with their families. I see EU nationals being scunnered and moving away from the country that they had called home, due to this UK Tory Government’s Brexit shambles. On DWP policy, I see people being discouraged—actively discouraged—from having children. Who will participate in the labour market in the future? Having children is an economic good. Who will look after the Minister and his family when he is old and in need of care? The UK Government should wise up to the demographic time bomb they are creating with this policy and so many other policies that make no sense. The “Unhappy Birthday!” report produced by End Child Poverty, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Church of England states:
“If you set out to design a policy that was targeted to increase child poverty, then you could not do much better than the two-child limit.”
I would like to know what assessment the Minister has made, other than the numbers released in April, of the impact of the two-child cap on all the areas I have mentioned in my speech—not just one or two of them, but all of them—because there are still too many flaws in the two-child cap, as I have laid out, and as I am sure other Members will wish to. I want to know how he can roll this policy out without that assessment having been done. The assessment has been left to the third sector, the Church—as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) pointed out—and to so many other organisations. The Government have not taken on this work; they have left it to others to do, which is absolutely unacceptable. They need to know what the impact of their policies will be on the ordinary people we represent.
I also want the Minister to explain why he is pressing ahead with extending this policy to all families come February next year, because, on the basis of this policy, people could not reasonably have planned the children that they have had. It is completely unreasonable to expect somebody in good times to think, “Perhaps six or seven years after I have had my child, I might—might—be made unemployed and I might need to claim universal credit.” That would not be in their head; that is not how people make decisions about their families. It is an absolutely flawed notion that people can do that. I want the Minister to pause and reflect, and to tell us that he can pause the policy, stop it rolling out further and end it for good.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. Seven colleagues at least have notified me of their intention to speak, and one or two more are rising. The winding-up speeches begin at 3.30 pm, so please use a voluntary time limit of four or five minutes each, if you would not mind.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on her tireless campaign on this very important subject and on securing today’s debate.
The issue sits in the context of the wider debate about universal credit, which will affect 1 million homeowners, slightly fewer than 750,000 households on disability benefits and 600,000 single parents. On universal credit, two in five households will lose about £52 a week in payments, and across many constituencies entire families will be severely affected—if they are not already. In areas where universal credit has already been rolled out, food bank use has increased by 52%. As the hon. Lady said, as part of the 2015 package, from April 2017 low-income families with a third or subsequent child lost their entitlement to additional support through child tax credits.
Kate Green
Does my hon. Friend agree that contrary to what the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) suggested, Labour did not support the two-child limit? We abstained on the Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill but voted against Third Reading. Does she agree that we should place that on the record?
Rushanara Ali
I concur. It is really important that the Scottish National party, the Labour party and other parties that oppose the policy continue to work together, so that we can protect families. More families will be affected from February next year, as universal credit is rolled out, and the retrospective element, which the hon. Member for Glasgow Central mentioned, will be devastating. No family could have prepared for a policy that was to be applied retrospectively; nor is it right that children should be retrospectively punished in that way. This, in short, is a punishment of children, and it is totally inhumane. No Government should be standing up for such a policy. Given that the Minister has recently taken on his role and the policy was not his idea, I urge him to reflect carefully on what is being said and on the representation being made to him, to ensure that the policy is reviewed and reformed.
If the Government are concerned about family size and think that families should not be as large as they are, just as with teenage pregnancy, public education exercises can be more successful than punitive measures that punish children. In developing countries, where there is a case for encouraging smaller families because families cannot provide, family sizes have been brought down through education and women’s empowerment, but that is a different debate from what is happening here.
Philip Alston the UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights recently said of the two-child limit that it is “in the same ballpark” as China’s one-child policy, because it punishes people with more than two children. Reports also state:
“The UK government has inflicted ‘great misery’ on its people with ‘punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous’ austerity policies driven by a political desire to undertake social re-engineering rather than economic necessity, the United Nations poverty envoy has found”.
It cannot be right that in one of the wealthiest economies of the world, our children face hunger and punishment.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
In encouraging the Minister to reconsider, does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that he understand that most people—most of those I meet, anyway—are in favour of reform, because of the complexity of what preceded universal credit, and are in favour of encouraging people into work, but are most definitely not in favour of stigmatising or of ensuring that the very vulnerable in society are punished as a result of the first two?
Rushanara Ali
I agree. I do not think that policies that punish vulnerable people are ultimately likely to succeed, which is why the Minister needs to rethink both this aspect of the universal credit policy and the policy more generally. In their attempt to simplify, the Government have found ways to cut funding. People will be worse off under universal credit.
Since implementation, the policy has already affected 400,000 children, and some 3 million children are likely to be affected. That is why I echo the points the hon. Member for Glasgow Central made, calling on the Minister to review the policy and put a stop to it, certainly until the extension of the policy next February, which will be devastating for families.
In my constituency, a large number of children and families will be affected by the policy. We have a large Muslim population and, as has been mentioned, people of other faiths are also affected. I call on the Minister to take into account the unequal impact the policy will have and the fact that the equality impact assessment is flawed.
Rushanara Ali
I will have to conclude, to give others the opportunity to speak. The equality impact assessment does not recognise the negative consequences for certain groups. More than 100 MPs wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, copying in the then Work and Pensions Secretary and the Chancellor, and we have still not had a response, which is really unfortunate. I encourage the Minister to go back to his Secretary of State and ensure that she responds to it and seriously rethinks the policy so that children in our country are protected.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). She made a very reasonable speech, but I do want to correct the record. Even as she was speaking, I found an article from 2015 on the BBC News website entitled, “Harriet Harman: Labour to back child tax credit curbs”. I am happy to place a copy of it in the Library, so that the House can correct the record.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on securing this important debate. Before my election to the House, I had the privilege of working for her for two years, and it was then that I saw at first hand how tenacious she was in pursuing the issue, when no one else had seen it and it was buried at the back of the Red Book. It is fitting that, three years on, she is still prosecuting the British Government for one of the most outrageous policies ever to emanate from Westminster.
Before I speak specifically about universal credit, I want to say a few words about the very concept of the two-child policy. Even three years on and having developed a degree of knowledge in the subject, I still cannot fathom how the policy got through Cabinet, let alone on to the statute books. In the past, the Conservative party could, probably quite justifiably, lay claim to the mantle of being the party of family values, but the two-child policy is so anti-family that I hardly know where to start.
I will start with the Conservatives’ outrageous claim that people should have only the number of children they can afford, as if that is a calculation people make when planning a family. If we followed that logic, we would be left in a position in which the only people who had more than two children would be the likes of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). What kind of society would we be looking at then?
The two-child policy is deeply offensive to those of us from a faith community. No matter whether it is Presbyterians or Roman Catholics, who forbid contraception, or Orthodox Jews, who for religious or cultural reasons favour larger families, the policy completely disrespects them and their views. I also argue that the two-child policy is short-sighted from an economic point of view. At a time when we have an ageing population, it is important that we also have a growing population that contributes to the tax base and helps to fund public services.
The reality is that the two-child cap is an ideological policy pursued simply to drive a wedge through society and cause a distraction from the real issues. It perpetuates the myth that there are millions of families out there breeding for benefits, when the evidence just does not back that up. The two-child cap breaks the fundamental link between need and the provision of minimum support, and it implies that some children, by virtue of their birth order, are less deserving of support. It is a large direct cut to the living standards of the poorest families of up to £2,780 per child, per year. At a time when people are struggling financially, that is a huge blow for household incomes and shows that the Government are not committed to the very concept of a social security system.
Whether it is the pernicious two-child policy, the medieval rape clause, or the wider shambles of universal credit, which is due to be unleashed next month in Glasgow, families across Scotland are rapidly concluding that social security being administered by the Westminster Government is akin to putting a lion in charge of an abattoir. I argue that a different path can be taken: one that says that social security exists for the good of all in society, and one that values every child, not just the first two. I think that people in Scotland are rapidly concluding that the only path to delivering that fairer society, with a comprehensive, fair social security system free of family caps, rape clauses and universal credit, is through an independent Scotland. Frankly, with policies such as the two-child cap and universal credit, the British Government are only hastening people more quickly along the path to independence.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I have to declare an interest as the mother of four children, albeit spread out over a period of 17 years. I can personally testify that large families have close and deep relationships, and the benefits of having a larger number of siblings are many and varied. However, this Government are seeking to punish families who have had three or more children. With only three children, those families will be losing £2,500 a year from their child element, on top of the cuts to universal credit that mean that 3 million families are set to lose over £2,000 a year. Families with four or more children will lose an average of £7,000 a year. Those families are already on a low income: they have already experienced cuts to tax credits of £1,500 on average, and a further £2,000 under universal credit.
This is not just an issue of child poverty. This is an issue of families facing destitution, with rising numbers of families with three or more children going to food banks. Families do not go to food banks unless their children are hungry. Can the Minister look not just those families in the eye, but look those children in the eye, or the parents who are trying to get their children to sleep at night when they do not have enough food in their stomach? It is absolutely inhumane. The policy will have a similar impact on large families as the benefit cap has on families in households with no work, but large families cannot escape that impact through work. In the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, we have heard of children in families to whom the benefit cap applies being taken into care because, given their levels of income, their parents cannot give those children the basic, decent standard of living that they need to survive. Is that a danger for all large families? It seems to be a return to Victorian times, with families punished for having more children and for not being able to earn enough.
Child tax credit and the child element of universal credit, which stands at £2,780 a year, is paid because successive Governments have recognised that doing so goes some way towards meeting the costs of a child, and have signed up to the ambition of reducing child poverty and increasing children’s life chances. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation produced a study that showed the impact of reducing incomes on children’s outcomes. Having reviewed over 34 studies, it concluded that increases in income appear to have an impact on cognitive outcomes comparable to the impacts of spending on early childhood programmes or education. However, income influences many different outcomes at the same time, including maternal mental health and children’s anxiety levels and behaviour. Few other policies are likely to affect such a range of outcomes at once. It is sad that the Government did not see fit to do an impact assessment on this policy, or to publish that assessment, before they went ahead.
Dr Huq
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work of the all-party parliamentary group on universal credit, which she chairs. Is she aware of the figures that show that 60% of Muslim children and 52% of Jewish children live in families with three or more children? My hon. Friend is doing a great demolition job on this Government, who balance their books on the backs of the poor.
Ruth George
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. The policy will certainly have a disproportionate impact on some faith groups, but also on anyone who, for whatever reason, has chosen to have three or more children—people like my constituent who posted on my Facebook page comments regarding this policy. She wrote that her husband died when she had three children and he was just 40. Why are the Government seeking to punish those children even more? They have already suffered the death of their father, and can now expect to see their income reduced as well. This policy simply does not make sense for the long-term economy of this country, which needs to invest in our children’s future in order to grow its way out of the economic mess that the past eight years have left us in. This country also needs to look at the interests of those children, and the impact of poverty and destitution on the 3 million children who will be affected by this policy. Please do not roll this out next February.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for securing this timely debate. As others have said, hon. Members might find themselves experiencing a sense of déjà vu, having once again gathered in Westminster Hall to highlight a Government policy focused on hitting the poorest families the hardest. There are 870,000 families with more than three children currently claiming these benefits, with the bottom fifth of the income distribution expecting to lose the largest proportion of their income. We know the policy is set to save the Government £1.6 billion by 2020, which is no small amount. That compares with the £2.7 billion that the Government are spending on giving an income tax cut to the highest earners; they continue to make it clear that they are not governing in the interests of ordinary working people.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that I have House of Commons Library extrapolations of the Budget impact of the 2017-18 tax giveaways. The figure for inheritance tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax is £80 billion over the period 2017 to 2025. Does that not show how wrong the Government’s priorities are?
Mr Lewis
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister often talks about supporting those who are striving and working hard, but unfortunately in reality, the consequences of Government policy are the precise opposite.
We know that the Government are targeting minority and religious groups with this policy. In my constituency, the Haredi community will be the hardest hit. There is a substantial differential impact on religious communities for whom family size is determined by beliefs and for whom culture is also a determining factor. That was omitted from the Government’s impact assessment, and the Minister might want to respond to that in his concluding remarks. Some 31% of all children live in households with three or more children. For families of the Jewish faith, the proportion is 52%; for families of the Muslim faith, it is 60%; and we know that many families of the Christian faith also have three or more children. We do not expect that those families will change their behaviour because of this policy, which significantly penalises them for their religious beliefs. What has it come to when a Conservative Government are attacking the concept of religious freedom in our society, which is precisely what this policy does? I know that sometimes people do not like talking about faith, but we should say that the concept of religious freedom is central to British values. This policy goes right to the heart of undermining that principle, but it was not even part of the Government’s impact assessment, which is absolutely shameful.
Families with more than two children face a cruel poverty trap, as others have said. They are unable to work their way out of poverty because, for every extra pound they earn, the Government will reduce their two-child allowance by 75p. Those changes severely undermine the financial security of larger families, who stand to lose up to £2,780 for each additional child beyond the first two. Many families will be unable to meet their children’s essential needs. An estimated 200,000 more children will be in poverty as a direct result of this policy. Children raised in poverty, as many hon. Members know, face many disadvantages: worse life expectancy, worse educational performance, and poorer health. Although the policy may make some short-term savings, in the long term it causes tremendous economic and social costs to our society.
One of the most shameful things about the Government’s record is the abandonment of any notion of a child poverty strategy. Right at the heart of any Government who sought to govern in the interests of all of the people of this country, a top priority, whatever one’s ideology, should be the fight against child poverty. The Government have abandoned strategy and a cross-Government approach. They no longer have targets, which means there are consequences. There is no focus whatever in Government to tackle child poverty as a policy priority. We then end up with policies such as those we are debating today, where no impact assessments have been done, adding to child poverty. What kind of society is the Government seeking to create? Most of those affected are working families who are in the just about managing group. Again, the Prime Minister talks about that all the time, but there is a gap between rhetoric and reality. Substantially cutting support sends an unhelpful message about the rewards of work.
In conclusion, the policy does a number of things. It hits the poorest the hardest. It increases child poverty, risks an increase in abortion, undermines religious freedom and causes vulnerable women to be even more vulnerable. The Minister must surely accept that now is the time to U-turn on such an appalling policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Streeter. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for securing this debate and for her perseverance in this matter. She has been an absolute stalwart and it is a pleasure to come and support her in these debates in Westminster Hall or wherever they might be.
As soon as I heard of this proposal, my immediate thoughts went to China and its child limitation policy. I can remember thinking, “How can we say that the state should help a mother to work and care for two children, but not three children or four? Why should the state and we in this House make that decision?” My parliamentary aide is the youngest of five children and she takes great pride in saying her parents kept going until they reached perfection, and Naomi is undoubtedly perfection. I can never say anything other than that. She will listen to this debate and that will confirm it. Probably I will be in her good books on Friday morning when I see her once again. I say that tongue in cheek, of course, but the principle is that her parents wanted a large family. It was their decision. Mum worked a little and dad had a full-time job. Today mum would not be able to work at all. That is a fact. Is that what we seek to promote? I say to the Minister with great respect that we must review this.
In the short time that I have I want to speak specifically about one organisation that contacted me. I will provide some background on the organisation called Refuge and what its opinion is. I had not considered entirely the implication of the rule for families experiencing domestic abuse until I read a briefing by Refuge. It certainly opened my eyes to the harsh reality for families throughout the UK. I sincerely hope the Minister hears what I say about the facts of the case. I hope it will open Government eyes to the situation and how we must change it to address the issues in my constituency of Strangford and in every other constituency in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The briefing highlighted opinion based on experience in Refuge centres throughout the United Kingdom. There is vast experience in the service that supports more than 6,500 women and children on any given day. That is the magnitude of what Refuge does. The services that Refuge provides include a national network of 42 refuges, community outreach, independent advocacy, child support services, and the freephone 24-hour national domestic violence helpline run in partnership with Women’s Aid. It does tremendous work. Refuge highlighted the problem:
“Policies which limit what is typically women’s income will inevitably lead to difficulties for survivors of gender-based violence. The two child limit inhibits and deters survivors from fleeing their abusers, where some cannot even afford to travel to a refuge. Once women have decided to leave, the added financial barriers to rebuilding their lives lead some women to question their decision, and sometimes return to their abusers.”
That is unfortunate. We do not want that to happen and I know that the Minister would not want that to happen. Refuge further explained:
“The policy itself has also been used as an excuse to perpetrate abuse. Refuge has supported a survivor whose abuser attempted to induce a miscarriage with violence because they wouldn’t get money for another baby.”
We must not let that happen, nor would the Government agree to that. That example shook me to my core, and it should shake everyone in this House to their core. It is clear that consideration must be given to circumstances such as those, and the limit must be changed.
The Refuge research found that the two-child limit is forcing survivors and their children into poverty and increases financial dependence on perpetrators. The two-child limit and lack of adequate support also act as a deterrent for many women who do not want to leave, as they fear they will be unable to support themselves and their children. Women’s lack of economic resources when they decide to flee and the added financial barriers to rebuilding their lives leads some women to question their decision to leave, which for some leads to their return to abusers.
In conclusion, the experience of Refuge, Women’s Aid and other charitable institutions must be recognised and must drive a review of the policy. I wholeheartedly ask the Minister to consider that. Life is tough for families and tougher still for those in abusive situations. We need to do what we can to help, and imposing a two-child limit on help to enable women and families to be financially secure is not helping. If we listen to the charitable institutions, that policy actually does harm. We must make a change, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for securing this very important debate and for highlighting the appalling impact of the policy. Her speech was very emotional. She covered the exemptions very well, so I will not touch on those because time is tight, but I want to voice my disgust at the rape clause and echo what she said in her speech about how unfair and unjust the other exemptions are. We agree that the Tory cuts are abhorrent and must be scrapped immediately.
In 2018-19, families with three children will lose up to £2,780 each year per child who does not qualify. I am not sure what impact that would have on some Cabinet members, but for families in my constituency in Midlothian it will have a massive and detrimental impact on their lives. An Institute for Fiscal Studies study from last year estimated that relative child poverty would increase over the next four years by 7%. It highlighted the two-child limit as a major factor in that rise. The Government’s own impact assessment in 2015—there have not been any more recent impact assessments—in the section entitled “Impact on protected groups”, acknowledges that the policy will probably have a disproportionate impact on women, ethnic minorities and people with other protected characteristics, yet there are no measures set out by the Government to mitigate that impact.
We have heard about the retroactive element of the policy. Households with three or more children who make a new claim will be required, as of February 2019, to claim universal credit, so they will be impacted by that and affected by the two-child limit, even if their child was born before April 2017. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central highlighted a letter from a constituent and the absurdity of the impact. Last month, I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how the retrospective implementation of the policy would
“encourage families to reflect carefully on their readiness to support an additional child”,
which is one of the stated aims of the policy, but I was given no coherent answer. Will the Minister answer that for me today? Scottish Labour would scrap the two-child cap in the upcoming Scottish Budget. That what is we will call for.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) is absolutely right to get stuck into the Government over this abhorrent policy? As in the case of the bedroom tax, if there is anything at all that the Scottish Government can do to help, we simply cannot and must not look our constituents in the eye and say, “We can act, but we are not going to because we should not have to.”
Danielle Rowley
I only have two minutes left, so I must press on.
The SNP have argued against covering for Tory welfare reform, and I agree that it should not exist in the first place; but such political posturing helps no one. The powers of the Scottish Parliament should be used to stop families struggling.
Danielle Rowley
I am sorry, but I must press on. I am quite confused about SNP policy, because the hon. Member for Glasgow Central said she cares about families and children across the UK and wants the policy to be stopped across the UK; but the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said that the only way to end the situation was independence for Scotland. I should like to know whether they care about people across the UK, or only about people in Scotland.
Danielle Rowley
I will not. I want to ask the Minister how he thinks the retroactive application of the policy will affect families who already have more than two children. How will it achieve the policy’s stated aim of making the system fairer and changing people’s financial choices about having children? In addition, there is no evidence that that would happen. What steps are being taken to ensure that women, ethnic minorities and other protected groups are not affected disproportionately by the cap? Have the Government made any assessment of the mental health and wellbeing impact of the policy?
The policy pushes more children into poverty. It targets women with no real assessment, and it is a good example of the Government engineering society to punish the less privileged for having children.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. There are eight minutes to go and two Members left to speak. I call Paul Sweeney; there are four minutes each.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on obtaining the debate and on her tenacious campaigning on the issue over several years.
The policy is totemic, highlighting the callousness of conservatism at its core. By contrast, the previous Labour Government reduced child poverty from 3 million in 1998 to 1.6 million in 2010. That was a remarkable achievement, unprecedented in modern history—an amazing societal achievement for our country. It was not done by accident. If support for households had increased only with inflation, child poverty would have been 4.3 million by 2010. The reduction happened because of huge, sustained above-inflation increases in targeted support for families and children. That is how we were able massively to reduce child poverty in this country and it is why I am proud to be a Labour party Member of Parliament. It will always be the party that defends the most vulnerable in society. We can look towards the contrast between what was achieved under Labour, and the disgusting policy of the Tory Government with the introduction of universal credit, which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) praised, saying it would allow the poorest families to make the same financial decisions as other families who are not reliant on welfare. That is clearly absurd, when we consider that approaching half the workers in this country earn less than £13,000 a year.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the record of the Labour Government; they have a strong record on the issue. However, does he regret the comments of his colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), when she was acting leader of the Labour party during the passage of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, that she could not oppose the Government’s plan to reduce the benefit cap and would back the two-child limit?
Mr Sweeney
Let me make one point clear: the evidence is that we voted against the Third Reading of that Bill, when it mattered. The rhetoric at the time is irrelevant. Also, the Labour party is of course now under very new management, with a radical approach to abolishing the policy. The point is irrelevant.
A Government who react to children’s pain in the way that is the subject of the debate—by callously making a comparison with a market decision such as buying a car or a house—are not fit to govern. That is what we face when the Conservative Government take that attitude towards children’s pain. The children do not make those decisions. We have a duty to establish a welfare state that goes back to its founding principles of drawing a line below which no one will fall, and above which everyone can rise. That is the fundamental principle of the universal system of welfare in this country. While I want a UK Labour Government who fulfil their pledge to end the rape clause across the whole UK, we should use powers wherever they can be found to mitigate the policy and reduce harms in society where possible.
Mr Sweeney
I am sorry, but I have already given way and have only five minutes for my speech.
We have the opportunity to make an impact in the Scottish Parliament, where there are powers to mitigate what is being done. It is four years since the Smith Commission, and the SNP has delivered only a single payment to carers. Families suffering the evil Tory cap on welfare need help right now. Indeed, that is not beyond the realm of possibility: to eliminate it in Scotland would cost £4,000 per child, which is less than 10% of the budget underspend of the Scottish Government. It is very much in their gift and they can achieve it, with the £10 billion extra they achieve from the Barnett formula. We must take action on all fronts to oppose the callousness of the Conservative party. Let us not pretend we cannot take robust action at all levels of Government to deal with the matter and minimise the harms faced by children.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on an interesting speech that combined elegance and passion.
I am a father of three: they enrich my life, and my wife’s life. A point was made in the debate about twins, which struck home with me, because I am the father of twins. I can see what a big difference the order of their birth could make. I have a certain reputation in this place for talking about universal credit, and I have so far concentrated on the rural issue of lack of IT access and perhaps of people trained to use it. I make no apology for always stressing the issue of remoteness, given the constituency that I represent.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given that in rural areas across the UK employment can be a challenge, and that 30% of benefit claimants are in work, the policy will disproportionately affect families in rural areas, where depopulation is a huge challenge?
Jamie Stone
That is an entirely fair intervention, and I accept it for what it is.
Let me give the example of a family, perhaps living in a remote strath in Caithness, Sutherland or Easter Ross, and consider the problems they would have. The cash, as we know, is limited after the birth of two children. The mum would almost certainly face increased costs for transport—to school or to use the NHS—and for food, because sadly prices get higher the further a place is from Edinburgh and Glasgow. There would be higher costs for heating and delivery. I want to raise with the Minister this afternoon the fact that we pay an extra charge for having some basic things delivered to our homes in the remotest areas. There would be higher costs for the children’s clothes or—let me put it this way—for getting to the charity shop, which is the challenge for many families. Even harsher still is the cost of getting to the food bank—not that I approve in any way of the fact that we have to have food banks in this day and age. It is a concept that was unheard of in my parents’ time in Scotland.
In fairness to the Scottish Government, I am aware of the good work that has been done on the bedroom tax, and I know there is a limit in absolute terms to what the Scottish Government can do. Having been a Member of the Scottish Parliament for some years I recognise that, and it is best to be absolutely straight about it.
I had a happy childhood, and am extremely fortunate to have done so. It was free from anxiety. There is no doubt that anxiety can scar today’s children for the rest of their lives. To quote the hon. Member for Glasgow Central—I hope I do so correctly—the social security safety net should be for everyone. That includes people in my constituency in the remotest parts of the UK, as well as those who live in more central areas. I hope and trust that the Minister will take my points on board. I mean them sincerely, for the sake of the people I represent.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
We now move to the speeches of the three Front-Bench spokesmen—one speaking from the Back Benches, I see, which is fine. We will leave a minute and a half for Alison to have the final word. I call Andy Gray—I mean Neil Gray. I beg your pardon.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I wish I had Andy Gray’s left foot, Mr Streeter. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and to receive that footballing accolade. That was some light relief after a stark debate.
I welcome, congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who secured the debate. She has been tenacious, dogged and diligent in her campaigning, and it has been a pleasure to be on the Benches with her as she has gone about that in the past three years, and to provide what support I have been able to give for her work. It has merited awards at all levels, although I know that is not why she does it. She does that work to make the lives of her constituents and of the people up and down these isles better. She recognises injustice when she sees it, and she seeks to tackle it. I commend her campaigning efforts, which continue today.
My hon. Friend’s speech, as ever, was detailed. She highlighted the fact that next year this abominable scheme is set to get even worse, as children will be targeted regardless of when they were born. She is right to challenge people—Ministers in particular—to state the circumstances in which those children will be living for the duration of their childhood and the ways parents should budget for them. I would love to see an 18-year family budget in front of me. She was also right to say that 73,500 households have already been affected, a large proportion of which already include people in work. The apparent principle behind this policy, which is to get more parents into work, is self-defeating as it is already happening. I suspect there is an ulterior motive that the Government do not wish to discuss.
My hon. Friend was right to mention the rape clause exemption, because that despicable, disgusting example of UK Government policy has meant that 190 women have had to note the names of children who were born as a result of rape. That we allow that to continue is a stain on us as a society. I find it extraordinary that the Minister can sit and listen to the stories that my hon. Friend read out and the examples from Turn2Us of people in desperate need of help, and then shrug his shoulders as if this is not an issue and nothing needs to be done. I suggest that he comes to one of our constituencies to hear how this policy is impacting on our constituents. Perhaps he could do a shift at Turn2Us and listen to people in desperate need of help as a result of policies that he continues to support. My hon. Friend was right to say that the children impacted by this policy have no say over events that control their lives. They have been targeted by austerity, which is shameful.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) was right to point out how incompatible this policy would have been if the Government had targets to reduce child poverty. No wonder that the new Secretary of State and Ministers were so desperate to attack Philip Alston personally for the initial findings in his report. I think they protest too much, because they know all too well the problems with child poverty that they are causing.
Again, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central, and thank her for securing this debate. It has been a good, positive and largely consensual debate, not least because no Conservative Member chose to speak. From the Labour Benches, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) was absolutely right and made an interesting speech, and I welcome her support for my hon. Friend’s campaign. The hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) made another helpful speech, and I commend her work as chair of the all-party group on universal credit. She gave good, if horrible, examples of the traumatic devastation caused by this policy. The hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) was right to point out the poor choices made by this Government. We made those points clear during a debate on the Budget, and that was reinforced by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who highlighted that between 2017 and 2025, £80 billion will have been spent by the Government on tax giveaways. That should give us all pause for thought.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) was right to say that the policy will have a disproportionate impact on women and people from ethnic minority groups, and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) was right to point to Labour’s record in government, which I acknowledged, although Labour policy has perhaps been rather sketchy from then until now. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) was right to ask how on earth, when discussing policy around the Cabinet table, nobody stood up and said, “Actually, you know what? I see where this is going. This is a disaster of a policy. This is disgraceful, not just from a social perspective but economically in terms of forcing people, including children, into poverty.” How did nobody round that table, or since then, speak up and say that this is wrong? I find that incredible. My hon. Friend was also right to highlight the religious discrimination at the heart of this policy, and I commend him for that.
This would not be a Westminster Hall debate if I did not sum up a good speech by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The question why we should make these choices for families was at the heart of his remarks, which is absolutely right. This policy is not about people making choices about being in or out of work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central so eloquently put it; this is about limiting the choices of people on low incomes and their families, and about how many children they can have and what they do in their circumstances. The hon. Gentleman was also right to highlight evidence from Women’s Aid and Refuge. The list of organisations that the Government are ignoring and being tin-eared about could go on.
In conclusion, let me mention the work that the Scottish Government have done since 2010 to mitigate the UK Government’s disastrous austerity policies. Work on the bedroom tax involving more than £100 million a year has been mentioned, but something that is often forgotten about, and one reason why Scotland performs much better than the UK on child poverty levels, is the council tax reduction scheme. That scheme has cost the Scottish Government £1.4 billion in recent years—a substantial investment to ensure that people on low incomes do not suffer the burden of council tax in the same way as other people across the UK, whose council tax reduction scheme has been scrapped by the Government. In Scotland we have also utilised some of the flexibilities available to us for universal credit, which costs another £1 million a year.
Neil Gray
I am just about to conclude my speech and I am conscious of time.
The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government will continue to do all they can to ensure that we do the best possible, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) was right in his bipartisan and measured speech. He said that the Scottish Parliament cannot be a Tory mitigation Chamber; it has to be more than that. There must be a limit to saying that the Scottish Government must always paper over cracks that have emerged from Tory policies. We must go after the problem at source. Therefore, rather than having a party political fight with the Labour party—I am not interested in that—I want us to continue with what, for the majority of this debate, was a cross-party attack on the Government’s policies. If Scottish Labour Members continue with that focus, instead of attacking a Scottish Government who are already mitigating the effect and doing what they can to reduce child poverty in Scotland, we will have a fair debate. We must end this two-child cap and the benefit freeze, and ensure that the Government do what they can in terms of work allowances and universal credit. Until that time we will not stop campaigning against this Government, and I hope Labour Members will join us in that.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for securing such an important debate. She shares my view, and that of many colleagues, that the two-child limit is unfair and adversely affects tens of thousands of families. That policy stands out, tragically, as a clear example—perhaps the clearest example—of a Tory welfare system that is failing and unsupportive of those most in need. That view is shared not just by those of us in this debate; it is shared by charities and many advocacy groups, and much of civil society.
Earlier this year, 60 Christian, Muslim and Jewish religious leaders strongly condemned the policy, arguing that it sent a message that some children matter less than others. Disappointingly, however, some do not share that view. The former Work and Pensions Secretary, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), described it as a “brilliant idea”, and believed that it would force claimants to make the same life choices as families who are not on benefits, and incentivise them to seek work or increase their hours. We have heard from this debate that it is certainly not a brilliant idea. The claims about life choices and incentives show nothing but disdain for the people and families who our welfare state should be supporting and show no understanding of the precarious reality of the world of work for many at the sharp end.
While the two-child limit was possibly the most pernicious element of the approach, we should not forget that it was part of a package of welfare reforms to tax credits and universal credit announced in the 2015 Budget. The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) pointed out, that the two-child limit alone will lead to 200,000 more children growing up in poverty by 2020. It is also a policy that causes one sibling to lose out at the expense of another, with one child being of more value than another. Surely that is not fair or right.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a simple unfairness at the heart of the policy? We should no more support it than support one child in a family getting access to education and another not, or one getting access to health services and another not.
Mike Amesbury
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and neighbour. Children are children.
From April 2017, low-income families lost entitlement to additional support through child tax credits or the child element of universal credit for a third or subsequent child born after that date. If the family was already claiming support for three or more children before that date, in principle they continue to receive support. However, to demonstrate the absurdity of the policy, if a third or subsequent child born after April 2017 is disabled, the family will receive child tax credits or the child element of universal credit for that child, but one of the other two children will lose out. As was rightly pointed out by hon. Friends across the Chamber, that is an attack on some of the most vulnerable in society: children. The policy also discredits the claim of this Conservative Government that they are the party of the family and of religious freedom. It is yet another example of why the roll-out of universal credit needs to be stopped.
The Government must end the delays in payment, and it must also end one of the most shocking consequences of the legislation: the rape clause. Another former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Ms McVey), made the extraordinary claim that the policy potentially offered rape victims double support: social security and “an opportunity to talk” about the assault. That was insensitive to say the least. As hon. Friends have pointed out, it was absolutely appalling.
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point. Does he agree that it is a very special kind of grim hypocrisy for a Government who have scrapped the child poverty targets and are heading towards a Brexit disaster that will see tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs lost to then target the most vulnerable in society? They will no doubt be losing jobs as a result of Brexit, but the Government have brought in a policy that marginalises and breaches the human rights of so many vulnerable members of our society.
Mike Amesbury
I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. What the former Secretary of State said demonstrates how out of touch Ministers are. Perhaps more of them should have attended the debate today, because they would have heard many contributions that have laid bare the misery the policy is causing. We heard contributions from 10 Members: my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Ruth George) and for Bury South, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley), and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). They are all very powerful voices for vulnerable children in this place.
This weekend, the leader of Scottish Labour called on the Scottish Government to mitigate the impact of the two-child limit. I urge the Scottish Government to use their powers to do so in advance of the budget on 12 December. They are already planning to use the new social security powers to introduce an income supplement. I urge them to help the 4,000.
Alan Brown
Does the hon. Gentleman accept the early points made about the limits to what the Scottish Government can do? He should bear in mind that they are not only trying to mitigate Tory cuts; these things are happening against a £2 billion cut to the Scottish budget in real terms. They are trying to mitigate Tory cuts with both hands tied behind their back.
Mike Amesbury
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said, there is a £10 billion supplement from the Barnett formula. We have heard the stories, and I have questions for the Minister.
Mike Amesbury
I am sorry, I cannot give way any more; I must move on.
Some 59% of the 73,500 families who lost financial support are in work. What does it say about the Government’s claim that they are encouraging people into work if their policy chastises those very people? According to the Government’s own figures, each family claiming benefit lost up to £2,800 in 2017-18 as a result of the two-child limit. How is such a callous approach helping to support families and helping to tackle poverty? Some 2,820 households were exempted during the first year, the majority because they had breached the two-child limit after having twins or triplets. It would seem that Government policy is divorced from reality. In fact, it is divorced from biology. It is yet another example of a policy conceived out of ideological spite and prejudice, rather than an understanding of real life, of what motivates people’s choices and outcomes and even of basic biology.
From February 2019, all households with three or more children who make a new claim will be required to claim universal credit and will also be subject to the two-child limit, irrespective of when their children were born. That cannot be right. It is not fair that the policy is applied retrospectively. Finally, yesterday, the Bishop of Durham and a cross-party group called for a ministerial direction to delay the February 2019 deadline. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister apply such a direction?
We have seen the effect that the policy is having on many households across the UK. We have seen how it is just one example of how Government social security chaos punishes rather than provides and focuses on savings, not support. The Government need to accept that their approach to social security has failed. They need to stop it, they need to fix it, and they need to fund it. Our communities, our families and, as we have heard today, our children deserve nothing less.
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for securing this debate. I know she has a long-standing interest in the subject, and earlier this year we met at the Department for Work and Pensions to discuss issues relating to this particular policy. Yesterday, as the shadow Minister just pointed out, there was a cross-party roundtable led by the Bishop of Durham to discuss these issues and I took part for some of the time, as did the hon. Lady. I thank all Members who have contributed to today’s debate.
My style is generally not to feed rancour in a debate, because I think it is important that we have a civilised discussion and colleagues have an opportunity to raise issues that are important to them, but the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) talked about the fact that an economic mess has been created over the past eight years. I respectfully say to her that she was not in this House in 2010. A number of us were, and I would say that the economic mess we inherited was from the previous Labour Government. I must point out that 3.3 million jobs have been created since 2010—I see hon. Members shaking their heads in disbelief, but that is a fact—and wages are now outpacing inflation. The vast majority of those jobs are full-time and permanent, at a high level of education. That is not an economic mess.
Rushanara Ali
Will the Minister address the social mess that his Government have created? That includes not only this policy, but welfare and policing—the list goes on. Will he respond to the serious concerns that hon. Members have raised today? That is what we are after: not looking backwards, but addressing the problem at hand.
Alok Sharma
Of course I will address the issues, but it is important to look back and see where we have come from to reach the policies that we are now putting in place.
Several hon. Members mentioned universal credit. I know that this debate is not about universal credit, but I am afraid I must point out that the legacy benefits system is not really fit for purpose. It is incredibly complicated, and as a result 700,000 households are not claiming—or are not able to get hold of—the full amount owed to them. Under universal credit, those households will be £285 better off on average per month. Likewise, 1.4 million people spent the best part of a decade on unemployment benefits under the last Labour Government, but that is changing.
I accept there has been discussion about finances, but I must say to SNP colleagues that, as Labour Members have pointed out, the Scottish Government have the power to create new benefits in devolved areas. They are able to provide assistance to meet short-term risk and they have the ability to top up reserved benefits from their own resources.
Alok Sharma
I will, but I point out for the record that the hon. Gentleman did not give way when Labour colleagues wished to raise that precise point with him.
Neil Gray
The Minister points out that I did not give way, but of course I was at the end of my speech; I was winding up to allow him enough time to contribute to the debate. He says that the Budget interventions will make people better off, but the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Ms McVey), suggested that people on universal credit were £2,400 worse off. If the Government are suggesting that their intervention will make people £600 better off, does that not mean that people will still be £1,700 worse off as a result of their actions on universal credit?
Alok Sharma
Again, I must respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman and to other Opposition colleagues that it is one thing to say that they want to support their constituents and that I should be prepared to look people in the eye—but they too should be prepared to look their constituents in the eye and explain why they would not vote either for the additional £1.5 billion that we brought in earlier this year to support people on universal credit or for the Budget measures, which I will talk about in more detail.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alok Sharma
If I may, I would like to make some progress.
The fundamental aim of our policy is to strike the appropriate balance between support for claimants with children and fairness to taxpayers and families with children who support themselves solely through work. Colleagues may disagree, but a benefits structure that adjusts automatically to family size is ultimately not sustainable. Our benefits system needs to be fair both to those who need the support and to taxpayers, but ultimately it needs to be sustainable. Parents who support themselves solely through work would not generally expect to see their wages increase simply because of the addition of a new child to their family. Of course we recognise that some claimants are not able to make the same choices about the number of children they have; that is why we have exceptions in place for additional children in multiple births and children likely to be born as a result of non-consensual conception.
Ruth George
The Minister makes his case about children who are due to be born. What arguments does he make to parents and families who already have three or more children, who are all going to be affected by this policy and who have absolutely no choice about it?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady raises a perfectly valid point, which I will get to if she gives me the opportunity.
From 28 November, exceptions will also apply to children in kinship care, regardless of the order in which they joined the household. The exception will also be extended to children who are adopted who would otherwise be in local authority care. It is also worth noting that as a result of natural or managed migration to universal credit, families’ existing entitlement will be protected as long as they remain responsible for the same children and remain entitled to benefits; that will apply regardless of the number of children in their household or their date of birth.
As hon. Members will know, a judicial review of the policy was heard in the High Court earlier this year. The Court found that it was lawful overall—a judgment that the Government welcomed. Several colleagues have spoken about the impact of the policy on particular groups, but I should point out that the High Court judgment on 20 April found that the policy did not breach the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
The Government remain committed to providing support for families. Under universal credit, 85% of childcare costs are covered—up from 70% under the old system—and, for the first time, people in part-time work can get help. That comes on top of the Department for Education’s 30 hours of free childcare provision for three and four-year-olds in England.
Alok Sharma
No, I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The flexible support fund is available to help eligible parents who are moving into work to pay up-front childcare costs or deposits. Child benefit continues to be paid to parents regardless of the number of children within the household. There is also an additional amount in universal credit designed to support disabled children, again regardless of the total number of children in a household.
To return to the Budget, we have listened to feedback about the support available for families on universal credit and we have acted. In last month’s Budget, the Chancellor announced that an extra £1.7 billion a year will be put into increasing work allowances for families with children and disabled people, strengthening universal credit work incentives and providing a boost to the incomes of the lowest-paid. This will result in 2.4 million families keeping an extra £630 per year of what they earn.
Alison McGovern
Does the Minister concede that a reduced cut to someone’s income is still a cut?
Alok Sharma
I have just explained how, as a result of these work allowances, more money is going into the system. As I say, if the hon. Lady wants that to happen, she should help us and vote for these policies.
Given the points made about poverty, it is worth pointing out that 1 million fewer people are living in absolute poverty than in 2010, including 500,000 working adults and 300,000 children. That is a positive outcome. Children living in workless households are approximately five times more likely to be in poverty than those living in households in which all adults work. There are now 637,000 fewer children in workless households than in 2010—a 33% decrease. The number now stands at a record low.
The Government continue to take action to help families with the cost of living through the national living wage, through reducing the universal credit taper to 63%, through raising the income tax personal allowance, and through childcare support, which I have already spoken about.
Several colleagues raised the changes to be made in February. I will simply point out that the High Court has found the policy to be lawful. From the Government’s perspective, this is an issue of fairness, but I will reflect on all the discussions that we have had in this debate.
This has been a useful debate in which colleagues have had the chance to air their views. I hope that I have demonstrated that we are a Government who listen. We have introduced support for families in the system and, of course, we will continue to listen and reflect.
Alison Thewliss
I thank all hon. Members who have come along today and contributed to the debate. The opposition to the policy is overwhelming; the fact that not one Tory MP could be bothered to turn up and defend it tells us all we need to know.
The Minister continues to be in denial about this indefensible policy, which takes no account of people’s circumstances, instead punishing them for circumstances that they can do nothing about. It is based not on the reality of people’s lives but on an entirely twisted perception that poor people should not have children and that women should be forced into having abortions rather than proceeding with healthy pregnancies.
There is overwhelming evidence of the harm that the policy will cause. Figures suggest that it will move the dial on child poverty from 33% to 42%. It has united people across all faiths and all women’s organisations around the country—a very unusual thing to achieve. It leaves people in a poverty trap; as has been outlined, a single mum with three kids would have to work a 45-hour week to make up the gap that the Government are leaving in her budget.
I plead with the Minister, as we have all done today. He has the option to halt the policy and prevent it from proceeding in February. I beg him to do so.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
South Eastern Rail Franchise
(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the South Eastern rail franchise.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Residents in Bromley have had real concerns for years now about the state of service that they get from the current franchise holder of the south-east London and Kent franchise. I know you are not unfamiliar with this area from a past life, Mr Hollobone. It involves the trains going up from the Kent coast, through the London suburbs, particularly in my case, the lines through Chislehurst and Grove Park to London Bridge, Cannon Street and Charing Cross, on the one hand, and, on the other, the line through Bromley South to Victoria.
Southeastern has operated the franchise since 2006. It is one of the largest in the UK with some 1,900 services each weekday. Some 65% of those are commuters travelling at peak times; it is essentially a commuter franchise. My constituency is essential commuterland. It has the second largest number of rail commuters of any constituency in England and Wales, following our neighbours in Lewisham West and Penge. There are a cluster of not dissimilar constituencies in the area because, of course, we have no underground provision and Southeastern is effectively a monopoly provider.
The truth is that it has been a lamentably poor monopoly provider in recent years. There are failings in the train operating company and in Network Rail’s operations as well—something like 60% of the failures are probably attributable to the failings of Network Rail. We can put the two together, because it makes little difference frankly for my commuters standing on a platform waiting for a cancelled train or sitting on a delayed train to have any degree of blame shifting between the two. As far as they are concerned, it is one railway and they have no alternative.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
What the hon. Gentleman says about Network Rail and Southeastern is true. People buy a ticket from Southeastern, but the issue may often be with Network Rail, and the two do not work together. I am sure that he will not be surprised that, a few years ago, Network Rail spent a fortune extending all the platforms so that they could take 12-car trains, but Southeastern did not buy 12-car trains. That is the sort of not-working-together that makes the lives of our constituents miserable.
Robert Neill
That is absolutely right. A number of us have raised these issues in the past, and we raise them today because the franchise is due for renewal. It was consulted on in 2017 and is due for a decision imminently.
My constituents are deeply concerned that we will simply get more of the same. I have said publicly, and I have said it to his face, that the Secretary of State missed an opportunity to shake up the franchise when it was re-let on its current geographical basis. I believe, as do many of my constituents, that there is an inherent tension between the needs of those commuter trains that come up from the coast and those that are part of the London metro service, where they are fulfilling a function similar to that of the tube. It is very difficult to reconcile the inevitable conflicts between the two in the current configuration of the franchise.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I am a Member of Parliament who represents one of the areas where the train comes up from the coast. Along with colleagues from Maidstone and the Weald and Tonbridge and Malling, I have significant concerns about the amount of house building going on. The train service infrastructure is not necessarily there to support that. Does my hon. Friend agree that when a commuter is paying more than £5,000 a year to get into work in London, they expect the service to match the cost?
Robert Neill
That is absolutely right, and I have total sympathy with those further down the line. Investment has not matched capacity. The few trains that come up from the coast and stop at somewhere such as Bromley South are crowded by the time they get there. Despite the promise that the London Bridge rebuild would solve the congestion, it has not, and all too often, it is necessary, for whatever reason, for the signalling arrangements to let trains from the coast go through, sometimes not full, while people are sitting on commuter metroland trains that are absolutely rammed. That is not working for anybody. We also frequently get points failures in that first six miles out of London, and that affects everybody who uses the network, however far they are going.
It is no exaggeration to say that I could probably fill the whole of this half hour by reading out emails, tweets and messages from social media sites that I have received since this debate was announced. I have had scores and scores. The numbers are perhaps exaggerated this time because of the publicity, but it is more or less a normal arrangement for me. There is not a day on which I do not see some complaint or other about some failing on the trains.
I commute up every sitting day from Chislehurst and I see it myself. I got the 8.09 from Chislehurst today. That is supposed to be a service of about 25 minutes, but I allow half an hour, to Charing Cross. That is not what it is supposed to be, but nobody expects these trains to run exactly to time—that is how bad it is. It is an exception if it runs to the minute. As it was, we arrived at 8.55, so it took nearly three quarters of an hour. My maths is not brilliant this afternoon, and I will be generous, but that is a 30% or 40% increase on what the journey time is supposed to be. That is not an exception; all too often, it is the norm.
Constituents say to me that they like the area, but are seriously thinking of moving because the trains are unreliable. As the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) said, that is compounded by the failure to invest in stock. Short train formations are a regular bane on both my lines and those going into north Kent, which creates serious overcrowding at peak hours. There is also pretty poor communication in terms of making people aware of last-minute cancellations and changes. The one shining light of Southeastern is the quality of the station staff at our local stations. I have found every one of them to be absolutely excellent; they really do their best and are well linked into the communities they serve. It is not their fault. It is a case of lions being led by donkeys, as far as the operation of the franchise is concerned. They deserve better leadership and could do with better investment in some of their stations. They have to bear the brunt of the frustration of passengers who pay a lot of money and are simply not getting the service they are paying for.
The issues have been well documented. The Department conceded that the number of responses to the consultation on the proposed renewal of the franchise was “unprecedented”. It is not surprising, given the amount of anger and angst. There are assurances that the new franchise documents will meet the concerns and that they will be taken on board. People’s trust is running pretty thin. The Minister is new to his post, but trust in the Department is running thin as well, as is trust in the regulatory apparatus and the operator. We were told that there would be much more joint working. The reason given for not redesigning the franchise and putting the metro services into Transport for London was that the Secretary of State wanted to bring train and track together. Although there have been efforts at joint working and there is a joint board, in practice what I seem to get is senior managers from both sides coming and giving me their excuses together rather than separately. I am not sure that it makes much difference to my constituents on the platforms.
There are some pretty blatant examples beyond the daily grind of cancellation and failure. When I was sitting on the train waiting to get into Lewisham about 10 minutes behind time, I had a tweet from one of my constituents, Tommy, who is known to Network Rail because it tried to block him once, because it did not like the fact that he was calling it out for the errors that it was consistently making. He tweeted about three trains delayed in the Lewisham area. He was spot on. That was because they had all been held to allow a late-running Dartford train, which was already behind schedule, to come through. Owing to the way it was operated, there were now four trains behind schedule. Clearly, that joined-up working is simply not happening.
We have had other errors on basic things such as timetabling. A lot of my constituents travel from Bromley North and Sundridge Park, then change to the mainline at Grove Park. That is a busy station, because even trains that start from Orpington are pretty full by then. The timetabling means that often people have one or two minutes to get from one side of Grove Park station—it has about four mainline tracks plus a baby platform stuck on one side—to the other. It is a very short period for people to have to go up a lengthy walkway and then on to a footbridge. That is assuming that the mainline trains run to time. When they do not, the shuttle service leaves without people. People either run—and sometimes slip, as I have seen on the footbridge—and pile on to an overcrowded train, or else they are left hanging around for perhaps half an hour until the next shuttle returns.
Local MPs and I have repeatedly raised the issue of timetabling. Time and again, I have said, “Why can you not align the timetables properly on the Grove Park branch?” but nothing has ever happened. Only three stations can be saved on the app’s dashboard, yet most people would like to have a choice of which London terminal they go from if there are going to be problems. That has been raised time and again with the most senior level of management. They say, “That’s an interesting idea,” but nothing ever happens.
About a year ago, there was a scandalous incident that ended up being investigated by the rail safety authorities. Just before Christmas, about half a dozen trains were stranded for up to four hours in the Lewisham area, affecting both sets of lines. There was very heavy snow and there were poor weather conditions—I accept that the central rail form of electricity on that line is particularly susceptible—but there was a complete failure to rescue people from the trains in any decent time, as my constituents regularly point out to me. A plan was supposed to be put in place to get people out of those trains—it should have been activated within an hour and got people out within two—but it failed. We had people sitting on those trains for five to six hours with no power.
One might think that something would have been done about that after the report was published by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, but my constituents remind me that there have been another four incidents of people being stranded for two hours or more. The basic procedures for getting people off delayed trains are still being ignored—there is no other word for it. That seems to be an extraordinary failure.
I could go on at length. An excellent councillor for Bromley Town, Will Harmer, has just tweeted me. He says of the Grove Park scenario:
“Yes, it happened again last night. Train just left as the first person got on to the platform.”
How many times do people have to say that before it sinks into the minds of the people who run Southeastern trains? Another message reads:
“Thanks for raising this, Bob. The delay problems have been steadily getting worse. Southeastern trains have been getting away with murder.”
My constituent Alex Le Vey commutes, and he says:
“The service is getting worse—more overcrowding, more delays.”
Another constituent says:
“Trains are late almost every day. The 17.52”—
it goes down to the Medway towns—
“is 15 minutes late on average, and only on time 20% of the time.”
I mention that because managers, Department officials and Ministers often come out with statistics and say, “Actually, things are improving. Things are getting better. Statistics show that reliability has gone up.” That is not the lived experience of people on the trains and platforms. On the operation of Southeastern trains, I am inclined to take the view that there are
“lies, damned lies and statistics”.
Looking at that scenario, it is understandable that we have real concerns about the franchise renewal. We might well get the same operator or one very much like it.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Many of my constituents are disappointed that the Government changed their mind and ultimately decided not to hand responsibility for the service to Transport for London. Knowing that the franchise will be renewed, they are worried that the renewal might be delayed. Earlier this year, we were promised that there would be an announcement this month—we have four days left. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns that we need a decision to be made, and that the new franchise cannot be delayed? In the minds of my constituents, the worst possible scenario would be the current operator extending the service far beyond April next year.
Robert Neill
I agree. The Minister will not be able to tell me the likely outcome, but some of our problems are with the franchising process. I was a believer in franchising out because I thought it would bring competition, but there are only about three big conglomerates that are capable of bidding for those franchises. Competition is non-existent—those big conglomerates have a nice, captive market, and there is nothing like the incentive that there should be for them to come up with the goods for paying customers.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is uncertainty and no guarantee of the investment that the network is crying out for. The thought of simply renewing franchises for operators that have failed would be, I think, pretty outrageous to most of my constituents and to most people who commute on that line. They do not want just a change of badging or a renewal or change with lots of promises that things will be better this time; they want to see precisely what is in the franchise document when it is published. We have seen the consultation, but we need to see the contract itself. What benchmarks is the operator being held to, what will be the penalties, and will those penalties genuinely be applied at this time? What more incentives will be offered to Network Rail to keep their end of the bargain? That is a big part of it, too.
What penalty will we sensibly apply to the public sector? When the private sector fails, franchises can be taken away—it should have happened more often in the railway network in the past—but we must also have proper recompense when the publicly owned Network Rail is at fault. What delivery timetables will ensure that overcrowding will be reduced and that the number of signal failures on the Network Rail side will be reduced, and over what time period? When will we have investment in the new carriages and the extra rolling stock? When will we have upgrades to the communications system? I recognise that we have seen some changes, such as to the delay repay system. With respect to the Minister and the Department, that is just skirting round the edges.
It is genuinely a pleasure to see the Minister back in his place. I hope it is not too much of a displeasure for him to have to come and listen to a debate on Southeastern trains again, because he did so a good deal in his previous incarnation. There must be a sense of déjà vu for him, as there is for me. Above all, there is a sense of déjà vu—not in a good way—for my constituents who are commuters. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these issues, and after the debate I will happily supply the Minister with a detailed list of all the complaints that have been sent to me on social media platforms. I will get that across to his office tomorrow—it will set out what has happened in the past 14 days or so to one Member of Parliament. I suspect that there are plenty of other Members across the franchise area who can say exactly the same thing, and I look forward to the Minister’s response so we can find out what is happening, when we will have some action and real promises, and how those promises will be delivered—frankly, people in our area have had enough.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, but I have not been notified that the hon. Lady wanted to speak. In half-hour debates, Members may speak only with the permission of the mover of the motion and the Minister. I am sure she can intervene during the Minister’s speech if she so wishes. I ask the Minister to bring the train into the station no later than 4.30 pm, because that is when the debate will end.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. The world of transport provides a wonderful array of images.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for securing this debate and for being a champion for his constituents and the users of this important franchise, which, as he said, has been operated by Govia since 2006. It is the third largest of all the departmental franchises. There were more than 450,000 passenger journeys per day in the first quarter of this year, so we are dealing with a railway of scale.
The franchise agreement between the Department and train operators includes key performance benchmarks —they all do—to ensure that the franchise delivers with passengers at its heart. I do not think that claim could be made consistently throughout the history of British railways. That is our objective, and that is how I will approach the whole industry.
Despite what my hon. Friend said—I look forward to receiving that dossier, as I am keen to hear direct feedback—Southeastern’s performance, as we measure it, is consistently above the average for London and the south-east. Of course, that should never be a cause for complacency. One should always try to improve, and the Department has regular conversations with Govia.
Robert Neill
I anticipated that the Minister would make that point. Will he consider one point? Many commuters on the line firmly believe that the statistics are skewed by, for example, changes to the timetable, which actually lengthen the journey time to give more dwell time between the stations so as to avoid penalties. They feel that there is an element of questionable counting. Once we have sorted this issue out, will he sit down with us to get a common view of how the statistics are calculated? People are beginning to lose faith in some of them.
Andrew Jones
I understand that, but it is important to have a set of statistics that give us comparable data from franchise to franchise over time so we can measure performance. Dwell times obviously influence journey lengths, and they are nearly always to do with how quickly people are able to get on and off changes at a platform. That is to do with the capacity and the popularity of the network. I will look at the statistics. I want a set of customer statistics that we can trust so we can hold the rail companies to account. My job is to speak up for the passenger. We are spending a huge amount of public money, with £48 billion of investment in the next control period, which starts in April, so we need to focus that to ensure we deliver for passengers, including those represented by my hon. Friend.
We have talked about the new franchise, which has been designed with a specification to ensure that Southeastern joins up with the new Thameslink routes across Kent. That will ensure the best possible service for passengers, in terms of services, space on trains and reliability.
Questions have been asked about the timing of the award of the franchise. It will be made not this week, but in the new year. I will keep all colleagues who are served by the franchise posted on the timing. The reason for the delay is that the evaluation of the agreement for the next franchise has taken longer than anticipated because we wanted to ensure that passengers get the best deal possible.
I completely share my hon. Friend’s view that we need reliability. The new franchise recognises the importance of reliability to passengers. As such, bidders must jointly appoint an alliance director with Network Rail, who will be responsible for overseeing joint teams, including one focused solely on performance. That individual is expected to be the single public face of the railway to its passengers. The point about communication in the industry was made clearly. We all know that it has broken down at times, but this is a positive move to address those concerns. Bidders are being asked to work with Network Rail to develop proposals for a digital traffic management system to allow more trains to recover from minor delays and still meet the published timetable.
All those measures are expected to deliver a railway that is more reliable and accountable to the passenger. If my hon. Friend is interested, I would like to invite him to join me on a visit to the Kent Integrated Control Centre at Blackfriars—not too far away—to see the excellent joint working that is already going on between Southeastern and Network Rail. It will be enhanced and built on in future franchises. He may wish to consider that; we can discuss it outside this debate.
The specification for the new franchise is intended to allow room for an additional 40,000 passengers in the morning rush hour by December 2022. It is designed to tackle the crowding levels and uncomfortable conditions on services today.
Tracey Crouch
The introduction of High Speed 1, which runs through my constituency, has helped to alleviate the pressure on the branch lines. In fact, it has been so successful that we have managed to get it to stop at Snodland, around which there has been a vast amount of house building, and it has been enormously popular. I raised the issue with the Minister’s predecessor, but there are now concerns that, as part of the new franchise, High Speed 1 will no longer stop at Snodland. Given that there is a delay in announcing the next franchise, will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can ensure my constituents in Snodland are still served by an incredibly successful and important part of the South Eastern franchise?
Andrew Jones
I will of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. We will set up that meeting promptly.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and others asked how we will deliver more capacity. It will be through longer trains. The new trains will be able to carry more passengers because we are increasing the number of the longer 10 and 12-car trains at the busiest times. First-class accommodation will be converted to standard class on commuter services to increase space for passengers further. That builds on the point that this is a hugely busy and hugely successful commuter line.
Incremental changes are being sought to today’s timetable that will deliver a more operationally robust daily plan. For example, we are reducing instances where services must cross at congested track layouts, such as those at Lewisham, which are a significant cause of passenger delay. The intention is that the next franchise will deliver a more regular service where possible. The key thing we are trying to get across is that this is about predictability and reliability. I know full well that passengers need a service they can rely on, and that is our plan.
Hon. Members will be interested to know that Sunday services will be enhanced and will be comparable to the level of service on Saturdays—a significant increase from today. There will be a Sunday service on the Bromley North branch for the first time in a considerable number of years. I hope that is of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the constituents he serves. Services on the Medway line will also be improved, and an additional two trains per hour will run to Ashford via Tonbridge outside the peaks. That will allow Hastings services to miss some stops to improve journey times. I know from my visit to Hastings that that is a key passenger aspiration.
A significant amount of work is being done to deliver an enhanced railway. It is clear that travellers are impatient to see the new services. I fully understand that. We are focused on placing the passenger at the heart of everything we do and working with the existing management of the franchise to maintain and improve its performance before the new franchisee is announced.
The new franchise will offer the passenger very significant benefits. I have urged my officials to ensure we get those benefits as soon as possible. Everybody is impatient for them; that is certainly a message that I have taken from this debate. I thank my hon. Friend and all colleagues who have contributed to the debate. Their contributions have been heard and understood, and we will take them on board as we work to make this rail franchise better.
Question put and agreed to.
EU Settled Status Scheme
(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I beg to move.
That this House has considered the EU settled status scheme.
This debate is about Europe, which is apparently why everyone is leaving the Chamber—I do not blame them—but at its heart, it is about people. It is about the millions of people across this country who have come from other European countries and made their lives and livelihoods here. It is about people who the Government have been clear from the off that we want to stay and whom we welcome.
In my constituency of Boston and Skegness, Boston itself has grown by one third over the last eight or 10 years, largely down to immigrants from other European countries. With them in mind, I wanted to secure this important debate, in part—I should be frank—to place on the record some of the success of the EU settlement scheme. My constituents are holding their breath because, in the eyes of some, the scheme will decide whether they can stay in this country and carry on living their lives. That is not the case. For the vast majority of them, it is a formality that will provide certainty and the necessary paperwork to confirm the fact that they live here, are welcome to stay, and will continue—we all hope—to be active and vibrant parts of our communities.
That is in the spirit of the question that I asked the Prime Minister immediately after the vote. Hon. Members should bear in mind that I am the Member of Parliament for a constituency that has a very large number of people from eastern Europe who cannot vote in parliamentary elections, but who I and other MPs in the same situation are privileged to represent. As I have said, some of those constituents are worried, but they should take some heart from the initial stages of the settlement scheme. I do not want to steal all of the Minister’s thunder, but as I am sure she will be keen to emphasise, in the first part of the beta stage, of the 1,000 or so people who took part, over 900 saw their cases resolved in the first 19 days. On average, it took just nine days to complete that process and, of the people from 12 hospital trusts and three universities, 94% said that they had had a good experience.
The process is expanding and another 55,000 people have taken part in the scheme. We stand on the brink of an expansion, with 250,000 more people potentially entering the scheme. While it has been a success so far, it is right that we ask questions today rather than allow the scheme to go unscrutinised.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern and those of the residents in my constituency who cannot prove continuous residence or employment and therefore worry that they might be failed by the current process?
Matt Warman
I agree with the hon. Lady that there are people for whom proving the five years’ continuous residency is harder, and we need to ensure that in future, the scheme treats those vulnerable people appropriately. We should bear in mind that there is, so far, no evidence of failure. Guarding against failure is one of the many things on the Minster’s plate, and we should be careful in a debate such as this not to worry constituents—as some have done unnecessarily—when there is no evidence. We should, of course, bear in mind that it is our duty to stay on our guard on this issue. In that sense, we have to welcome what is clearly a success so far, but as the scheme expands by another quarter of a million people, more people will inevitably be in the position that the hon. Lady describes.
With that in mind, I will highlight two or three positive things, before asking the Minister a number of questions, which I hope she will be able to answer and demonstrate that this is a rare example of a Government IT project that not only has not yet fallen over, but shows that the Government can build systems that are scaleable, that will be successful in the future and, when they are coping with millions of people, that we will be able to look back on as a model. It is worth mentioning in passing that this could be a model for the European Union itself, because to my knowledge at least—perhaps the Minister knows more—there has not yet been a reciprocal arrangement from the EU for British citizens abroad to register in the same way that EU citizens can do here. It might be a model for government not just in the UK but for Governments around the world. We should bear in mind that this is not simply about EU citizens in the UK, but about UK citizens in the EU.
I will highlight two positive elements in particular. The system links directly into Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and allows people who have the continuous residency mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) to demonstrate that they have the settled status, which clarifies their position and enables them to continue living life in the UK in exactly the same way. It also provides what might be called the “digital signature”, which allows people to easily reassure employers wishing to take them on that they are settled in this country, and which means that they are not in the unfortunate positon of having an identity card or papers that might be stolen by people with bad intentions towards vulnerable people. The system is digital for the convenience of both the user and the Government, but in a way which genuinely benefits the user. There are a number of very good elements.
I have some questions for the Minister, the first of which I hope will be clarified in the future if not today. The reason why the scheme has been in the papers so much is the attitude of Apple and the inability of its phones to support the scheme, which is slowing down the process. We must not pretend that the rival operating system, Android, is the minority—it is a massive part of the market—but Apple should surely be co-operating with the Government and allowing the necessary chip to be used in a way that would make life easier for an awful lot of my constituents and for the constituents of other hon. Members in the Chamber. That is an issue that Apple must address, and I hope the Minister will tell us a little about what will happen on that front.
It would also be useful if the Minister said a little more about how the Government will spend the £9 million that they have recently committed to helping vulnerable people use the scheme. That commitment is hugely welcome. Many constituents are not able to use the internet or go online as easily as we—or they—might wish, and although I welcome the Government spending to assist those vulnerable people, a little more information on how that money will be spent would be helpful.
I would also like the Minister to indicate what plans are being made for the self-employed or for the dependants of those in the scheme, so that we can have confidence, as it expands beyond the 250,000 people being added in a couple of days’ time. I know that a lot of work has already been done on that front, but it remains the case that the majority of people who will be part of the scheme are not yet part of it. I hope we are in a position to reassure them that their futures are in good hands.
Finally, it is important to say that the report from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants makes one legitimate point and several points that I regard as less legitimate. People who have been, for example, the victims of human trafficking might get their fees waived in other circumstances; will that be the case in this scheme? What specific provisions will we make in future as more and more vulnerable people in different categories come into the scheme?
I end as I began, by saying that, contrary to claims made by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, this scheme will give people a number of years to settle their status. It will, I hope, allow them to gain the peace of mind that we all want them to have. As the Prime Minister said, we welcome them as part of our communities and we want them to stay. I and many other MPs are keenly aware that our job is to represent people who live in our constituencies, whether they are able to vote for us or not.
In that vein, I pay particular tribute to the work of Migration Matters and PwC’s Julia Onslow Cole, who helped me a bit with this debate. They have keenly scrutinised the scheme already and been involved in it to some extent. They have been eager to praise it where it is worthy of praise and, like many of my constituents, they hope that the future will go as well as the past. We should also pay tribute to the progress of the scheme so far, and remind our constituents that it is providing a small number now—a large number in future—with the security that they need and deserve. I hope that the message that goes out from the debate today is that this is an example of a Government IT scheme that, for once, is delivering on the ground quickly, providing people with the peace of mind that they deserve.
At its heart, the settlement scheme might not sound as though it is a profoundly emotional matter, but many people worry that the Brexit vote has fundamental consequences even for those who came to this country many years ago. We as a House of Commons should do everything we can to reassure them that they are welcome in the communities in which they have settled and that the Government will not put unnecessary barriers in the way of their future life in this country. With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on securing an important debate.
Frankly, it is appalling that people still face uncertainty about settled status. Recently, I held Brexit public meetings throughout my constituency and shared with my constituents all the information available from the Government website. They did not feel reassured, and only asked more questions. The continued uncertainty about settled status is costing communities and families who contribute socially and economically. In the public meetings, I met EU nationals who are doctors, nurses, teachers, service workers and many more. They remain terrified by the uncertainty. They still have no answers to the most basic questions about their future.
The uncertainty about settled status has already had a devastating impact on the ability of our local employers to recruit the workforce they need among people from the EU countries. Instead, those people who would be taking up opportunities and jobs in part of the highlands where 20% of our economy is based on tourism, are choosing to go elsewhere in the EU for work. I have heard from countless business owners in my constituency, particularly in tourist towns such as Aviemore, about their staff shortages and the impact of the uncertainty on their businesses.
The uncertainty is particularly frustrating for employers who cannot get a straight answer on the rules. The Home Office has said:
“Employers will not be expected to differentiate between resident EU citizens and those arriving after exit.”
That contradicts comments made by the Immigration Minister, who only days ago told a parliamentary Select Committee that employers would be required to do
“rigorous checks to evidence somebody’s right to work”.
If they cannot agree among themselves, how do they expect employers to know what to do? We are not talking only about those who want to employ EU nationals but about EU nationals who are themselves business owners.
This is a profoundly personal situation for many people. Shortly after the referendum, I was approached by constituents who ran an import-export agricultural business. The uncertainty about their future has forced them to close their business, and now they are concerned because they have primary school-age children; they are worried about their status and whether they are able to live and work here at all. Based on the warm words of the UK Government so far about protecting EU citizens, I have tried to reassure them, saying that I imagine that they will be okay in future, but the lack of any evidence to back that up with fact means that the people affected are, and remain, deeply unsettled.
The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness described the situation as profoundly personal. This is a profoundly personal problem for people, but in my constituency and many like it in Scotland, it is also a profoundly personal situation for the communities in which EU citizens reside as our friends and neighbours. We have the pain of trying to work with them through this Brexit mess.
Wera Hobhouse
Is it not true that we might also be failing the most vulnerable? Some of the processes are difficult to understand; some of our more vulnerable EU citizens might not understand them all, and legal aid is not available. Should we request that legal aid be made available to our more vulnerable citizens who find the process difficult to understand?
Drew Hendry
I completely agree. For public service workers in Scotland, the Scottish Government have stepped in to support EU nationals, but that is something that should simply be done as a matter of course across the nations of the UK, because there is a big problem. The lack of information and clarity from the UK Government has posed a significant problem.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Hollobone. The UK Government need to get a grip on this. People cannot be left in their current state of uncertainty and worry.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on securing this debate.
My party and I obviously very much regret the need for a settled status scheme at all but, for so long as we are heading down that road, we all have an interest in ensuring that it works as well as it possibly can for the sake of all those caught up in it. I congratulate hon. Members who have raised a number of concerns and issues that still require resolution or clarification, while also commending the scheme’s positive features. I acknowledge that a lot of hard work has gone into the scheme so far, but my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) reflected the overriding and pervading sense still of worry. As an Opposition MP, I will focus on that side of things, rather than on the more positive aspects highlighted by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness.
First, there is the issue of who qualifies for settled status. The Government did a lot of work to build trust, but every now and again they seem to shoot themselves in the foot. The latest problem has been a discrepancy between what is committed to in the statement of intent and what is delivered by the immigration rules. The intent was clear—that all EU citizens bar serious criminals would be allowed status, and only proof of identity and residence and a criminality check were to be required. However, the immigration rules reserve for the Home Office the right to refuse all who are subject to removal for not exercising treaty rights. That comes across as a breach of trust, which should be remedied. This is not a hypothetical matter—29% of permanent residence applications are refused for non-exercise of treaty rights, so hundreds of thousands of people, if not a million, may be caught by that.
I came here from another interesting meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, at which the permanent secretary and the Home Secretary again went out of their way to reassure us that their intention is simply to stick to the statement of intent, and that all that will be required is ID, residence and a criminality check. I put to the Minister what I put to them: why not ensure that the immigration rules reflect what is in the statement of intent and remove this ambiguity and dubiety altogether?
I have not yet established whether certain classes of people will qualify. I have raised some of these issues before, but I am still not clear whether a number of carers will qualify for settled status, including Zambrano, Teixeira, Chen and Ibrahim carers. I raised that at the Home Affairs Committee and was promised a letter, which never arrived, so it would be useful if the Minister clarified that. The number of people involved is very small, but the consequences are just as important for them as for everybody else.
I turn now to cost. My party has long called for the scheme to be free. I do not expect the Minister to announce that that will happen. We welcome the waivers and reductions that have been introduced, but we continue to call for the Government to go further. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness mentioned some vulnerable citizens for whom it would definitely be appropriate to seek a waiver. After all, we are requiring these people to apply to remain in their own homes and jobs. Charging them for the privilege seems to me to be rubbing salt in the wound. Although £65 does not seem a massive amount, we are talking about a family of five having to pay £230. On top of that, at least 100,000 people will have to apply for renewed passports and so on, and there may be other costs related to the scheme. When all those expenses are taken into account, the cost could add up.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend mentioned the £65 charge for applications, but there is a £32.50 fee for children. Does he find that unpalatable?
Stuart C. McDonald
That is a fair point. I reiterate that our party believes the scheme should be free of charge altogether.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Scottish Government, but there are other employers who want to support their EU employees by paying the fee for them. For example, this morning I met the University of Cambridge, which is among those employers who want to pay for EU employees to achieve settled status. Actually, it will go further and apply for family members, too, so hats off to it. I understand there may be a technical issue with that, but I think employers want to be able to pay the fee as their employees make the application rather than having to reimburse them after the event. I do not know whether that is possible, but it would be useful if the Minister commented on that.
There is a concern that if employers reimburse their employees, they will be charged tax by the Treasury. Obviously, that would be awful from all sorts of perspectives. It will cost the University of Cambridge around £1 million to reimburse its EU national employees. For the Treasury to tax that would be wrong in principle, and it would not be good for the Government to be seen to be taxing settled status applications funded by employers. It may also discourage other employers from doing the same. I think the Home Office is keen for as many employers as possible to support their employees through the scheme, so it would be useful to hear what the Minister has to say about that. Again, I raised it with the Home Secretary a few moments ago in the Select Committee. He said he would be willing to raise it with the Treasury, and it would be good if the Minister was on side with that, too.
On evidence and advice, I have absolutely no reason to doubt that this process should prove simple in straightforward cases. However, like the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), I am worried about cases that are not simple, such as those involving elderly EU citizens who achieved permanent residence many years ago but are long retired and lack documentation. Why exclude any sort of evidence—evidence of family, friends and other sources, for example—from consideration? Why not allow caseworkers to look at all the evidence in the round in cases where the Home Office’s preferred type of evidence is not submitted?
Some people will have very difficult decisions to make. For example, they may be offered pre-settled status by the Home Office and have the choice of either challenging that and continuing to look for settled status or just going with what the Home Office offers them. Advice will be very important. Although the practical advice offered by the Home Office is helpful, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that there should be provision for independent legal advice via legal aid for those who need it but cannot afford it. That will be available in Scotland as normal through the advice and assistance process, but it should be available to all throughout the UK.
More generally, we need a concerted and ongoing outreach scheme to ensure that everyone who needs to apply applies. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness mentioned the £9 million that has been spent so far, but I am dearly worried that that will not be enough. I recently read an alarming paper from the British Medical Association, which suggested that 37% of EU doctors were blissfully unaware of the Government’s settled status scheme. Imagine what that figure is among people who are not brilliant at English, elderly or vulnerable people, and people who never use the internet. There will be many who simply do not think they need to apply, including children who think they are British because they were born here but are not.
That leads us to what is probably the pivotal question: what happens to those who fail to register by the cut-off date? That includes both those who do not apply at all during the initial period and vulnerable people who get pre-settled status but fail to apply during the subsequent five years. Again, that will include children and other vulnerable people, such as trafficking victims. I asked in the Select Committee why we need a cut-off date at all. Surely, the end of the implementation period provides all the motivation we need to encourage people to apply. If even 2% or 3% fail to make it—for most Home Office schemes, we would be lucky to get 80% to 90% of people applying—tens or hundreds of thousands of people who should have applied will not have done so. Those people will face all the same consequences the Windrush generation faced, but the numbers involved absolutely dwarf that horrible episode. There is no need for a cut-off point. People should continue to be able to apply afterwards.
There are significant concerns about those who obtain status not being provided with a proper document. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness talked up the positives of the digital document, but there is another side to that. These people, too, fear the hostile environment. The Residential Landlords Association, the3million, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the Exiting the European Union Committee have all warned that if a landlord is approached about a property by one person with a British passport and another with a bit of digital code that requires further investigation, the person with the British passport will get the property. We are already seeing that sort of discrimination, and the big fear is that EU nationals with a bit of code will get it 10 times worse.
Finally, we have the issue of enforcing the deal on citizens’ rights. We need to know what form the independent monitoring authority will take. Obviously, it should be independent of the Government. When will it be established? Is there any prospect of that happening prior to the end of the implementation period, given that most applications will be made during that time?
There are many other things I could mention, and lots of issues will continue to arise. My final ask of the Minister is simply that she makes a statement to Parliament early in the new year to update us—and, most importantly, our constituents—about the progress that has been made so we can continue to push and raise concerns on behalf of EU nationals.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is an honour and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) for securing this important debate.
The UK will leave the EU in four months’ time, but significant uncertainty remains for the 3 million EU citizens in the UK. I will focus on three areas: the Government’s failure to protect EU citizens from the hostile environment; broken promises on citizens’ rights; and the roll-out of settled status so far. To avoid another Windrush scandal, those issues must urgently be addressed.
First, it is clear that EU citizens will be subject to the full force of the Prime Minister’s punitive hostile environment. Will the Minister take this opportunity finally to clarify what checks employers will be required to carry out on EU citizens after Brexit and what evidence will be sufficient for EU citizens to prove their status? At any point during the transition period, will employers be required to differentiate between EU citizens who are already here and those who arrive during the transition period? Will an EU passport or identity card be enough for any EU citizen to prove their right to work until the end of the transition period? Have any business groups raised these issues with the Minister or anyone in her Department?
Right-to-work checks are a fundamental plank of the hostile environment that was directly responsible for Windrush. We know that EU citizens have already faced discrimination in the job and rental markets. The lack of detail from the Government is contributing to this climate of uncertainty and confusion.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many EU citizens are so concerned about their future that there have been cases of people deciding instead to apply for British nationality, to give them an extra guarantee of being able to stay in this country, such is the level of concern to them and their families? I raise an anonymous example from my constituency, of a young, highly-skilled family with three young children, where the mother has had to pay £1,500 to gain British nationality. It has been a huge cost to them and been very distressing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole process is causing undue distress?
Afzal Khan
I agree with my hon. Friend that this process is causing difficulties. I know from past experience that the regime of charges in operation, which are being increased, almost seems to some people to be a profit machine rather than providing good service to the public.
I would like to ask the Minister what would happen if applicants lost their access to digital proof of their settled status, for example in the case of Home Office errors in record keeping or loss of data? Would there be alternative ways for them to provide proof of status?
Secondly, the Government have broken a promise to EU citizens and gone against assurances given to the House on settled status checks. We have been told multiple times by different Ministers that the Government will not check that an EU citizen is exercising their treaty rights under free movement. In a recent letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the Prime Minister wrote:
“You asked me whether resident EU citizens and their family members applying for UK immigration status under the EU Settlement Scheme will be required to show that they meet all the requirements of current free movement rules. I can confirm that they will not.”
However, in recent changes to the immigration rules the Government granted themselves the power to reject settled status applications if someone was not doing this.
In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), the Minister for Immigration said:
“The draft Withdrawal Agreement does not protect those who are not exercising or are misusing free movement rights. This means that, while free movement rules continue to operate to the end of the planned implementation period, there will remain scope, as a matter of law, for a person to be removed from the UK on those grounds.”
There are a number of people—for example, carers, stay-at-home parents or retired people—who are not exercising treaty rights and are at risk of having a removal decision made against them. Can the Minister tell us why she has granted her officials this power? Either the Government are going to use this power for at least some applicants, in which case Ministers have gone against significant assurances to EU citizens and to this House, or this power will never be used, in which case why grant it in the first place?
Thirdly, on the roll-out of settled status so far, am I right in saying that the settled status app is still not available on Apple products? Is the Minister aware that the facial recognition feature on the Android phone is not working in some cases and the Home Office has required people to send in their original passports just weeks before Christmas? What measures are being put in place to ensure that privacy of biometric data is protected, especially where the Government share this data with their contractors?
The campaign group, the3million, has raised concerns about the accuracy of the Minister’s report on the first phase of settled status. It is misleading to say that “no cases have been refused”, as 129 people—over 12% of the applicants—were still awaiting a decision. Can the Minister clarify the situation that these people are in now?
There remains significant concern about how vulnerable people will register. The Minister has emphasised that it will be a “simple, straightforward process”, but even simple processes can become complicated very quickly for people with complex lives. During a Home Affairs Committee hearing, one of the Government’s immigration advisers said:
“It is possible that in a few years’ time when the scheme has been implemented, we won’t really have any idea how inclusive it’s been and whether there are significant numbers of people who fall through the gaps.”
How will we know how many EU residents are left without status when the Government do not collect or release the necessary data?
On Sunday, a withdrawal agreement was published that fails to address significant issues with EU citizens’ rights. Onward free movement for UK citizens in Europe has not been resolved. We have not had guarantees of what will happen to the agreement on EU citizens’ rights in the event of no deal. EU citizens will be subject to the hostile environment, may be required to prove they are exercising treaty rights and the Government will have no idea how many people remain undocumented come December 2020.
We have been told that the immigration White Paper may come as early as next week. Can the Minister confirm this? How will it affect EU citizens who are already here? We have already suffered months of uncertainty because the Government cannot get their house in order. The Government have failed to protect EU citizens in the UK.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
It is a pleasure as ever to serve under your Chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on having secured this important debate on the EU exit settlement scheme. My hon. Friend has raised this with me previously in the House, and I recognise his particular constituency interest, with the population of Boston and Skegness having increased by one third.
I would like to thank Members from both sides for their contributions to the discussion today and to put firmly on the record how much work has gone into the EU settlement scheme. It is a good news story that the scheme is open for private beta testing well ahead of EU exit day.
EU citizens make a huge contribution to our economy and communities. It is not just that they can stay, but that we want them to stay. Since the 2016 referendum, there has been a great focus by the Home Office on securing citizens’ rights and delivering the scheme so that EU citizens can obtain their UK immigration status quickly and easily.
Members will know that in December 2017 we reached a deal with the EU on citizens’ rights. In March 2018 we agreed to extend that deal to those who arrive during the planned implementation period, which will run until 31 December 2020. The full legal text of the draft withdrawal agreement, published on 14 November, secures the rights of more than 3 million EU citizens living in the UK and around 1 million UK nationals living in the EU.
The scheme we have been discussing today enables those who are resident in the UK before the end of the planned implementation period to obtain UK immigration status in a straightforward process. Anyone who already has five years’ continuous residence in the UK when they apply under the scheme will be eligible immediately for settled status. Those who have not yet reached five years’ continuous residence will be eligible for pre-settled status and will be able to apply for settled status when they reach the five-year point.
The scheme is a simple and streamlined application process, which draws on existing Government data and processes to minimise the burden on applicants. Caseworkers will be looking for reasons to grant, not for reasons to refuse. We expect the great majority of the 3.4 million currently resident EU citizens who will be eligible to apply to do so and to be granted status. They will have plenty of time to apply before the deadline of 30 June 2021.
I would like to give some feedback on the first pilot of the private beta testing phase that we ran in the north-west of England, which has now finished, with excellent feedback from participants. Some 1,053 applications were received, with a decision now granted in 1,046 cases, which were dispatched by 19 November.
Matt Rodda
I appreciate the Minister’s comments about the testing phase. Will she agree to meet me and a selection of constituents with EU nationality who have concerns about the scheme, as part of the feedback?
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Throughout my time as Immigration Minister, I have always been pleased to meet as many interest groups as possible, so I will be delighted to meet him and some of his constituents. I would like to reassure him that I also have a constituency in the south-east of England and regularly meet my own constituents, who raise their concerns with me, and understandably so. Since the referendum, it has been a time of uncertainty and upheaval for some people, and it is important that the Government make ourselves as accessible as possible, so that we can give a reassuring message to our residents.
Drew Hendry
I hear what the Minister says about making the message as encouraging as possible, but does she agree that when language is used, either deliberately or lazily, saying that EU nationals are “jumping the queue”, it sets back that objective quite considerably?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are moving forward shortly with a new immigration system. Sometimes it can be very frustrating in the Chamber, because we end up on time limits and with either the Chair of a debate or the Speaker urging us not to take up too much time, but I am always very conscious in the language that I use that we must be welcoming, careful and tolerant. Immigration is an emotive and difficult subject, and I always regret it when my time limit means that I speak in what I refer to as tabloid headlines, which I never welcome. It is important that we set out in due course—hopefully very shortly—our future immigration system, which will certainly be based on skills that people can bring to the UK. That is our position going forward.
As I was saying on the update of the private beta testing phase 1, the average time taken to reach decisions was just under nine calendar days, and the fastest decision was made within three days. All applicants successfully proved their identity and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness said, around 94 per cent of those who provided customer feedback found the application process easy to complete.
The second pilot began on 1 November and will test the online application as an integrated, end-to-end process. It will significantly scale up the testing, with EU citizens working in the higher education, health and social care sectors across the whole UK, who make such a huge contribution, being able to apply. I would like to thank them and their employers for assisting us in this way. This phase will also enable us to consider the support that some vulnerable applicants may need. The Government have already announced grant funding of up to £9 million to enable voluntary and community sector organisations across the UK to provide such support.
We are also using the remaining months before exit to scale up our communications and outreach. Millions of people have already seen Government advertising encouraging them to visit gov.uk for easy-to-understand information, and there will be a comprehensive set of communications materials next year. As I have travelled the country over the past few months and met EU citizens, I have been pleased to hear that they have already received communications, and many are confident about the settlement scheme’s progress.
My hon. Friend raised a series of questions, all of them important ones that he is absolutely right to raise. We continue to work with Apple to deliver the identity verification functionality that is currently available only on Android. He may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was in America only recently, and I am conscious that this is an issue that he continually raises at the highest level.
The £9 million grant funding to those groups helping vulnerable people is incredibly important, and my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness asked how, specifically, it was to be spent. On 25 October we announced the grant funding to enable voluntary and community organisations across the UK to support EU citizens who need additional help to apply. We have been working really closely with charities and community organisations representing the needs of vulnerable EU citizens. These grants will help them to inform vulnerable individuals about the need for status and to give practical support in enabling them to complete their applications.
I visited the Barbican library some months ago to look at the Assisted Digital service, and I was impressed with the commitment of people there to ensure that individuals were getting the support they needed. We currently have a pilot running with five local authorities, including Kent and Lincolnshire county councils, Sheffield City Council and Waltham Forest and Haringey borough councils. We are also working with seven non-governmental organisations, including the Cardinal Hume Centre, St Vincent de Paul, the East European Resource Centre, Coram, Rights of Women and various other groups. Our aim is to ensure that grants are awarded across the UK to communities where support is most needed and where organisations are able to provide it. The lots are specifically designed so that a diverse range of organisations are able to apply; eligible organisations can be charities, non-profit organisations, community groups or religious organisations.
The second phase of testing will finish on 21 December, which will enable us to have, in technical terms, a fire break between phase 2 and a further phase of testing, which will occur in the new year. Self-employed people can prove their residence via our automatic data matching at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and family members will be able to use a range of evidence not necessarily linked to employment to prove their residence.
My hon. Friend and, I believe, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who spoke for the Scottish National party, raised the matter of fee waivers and the cost of applying. This matter was raised with me in the House, specifically in relation to victims of human trafficking, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). She made, as indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness has made, an important point. I undertook then to look at the specific issue of those who had been victims of human trafficking, and I would like to reassure hon. Members that it is a point well made and something I am looking at very closely.
However, having agreed the level of fees with the European Union, we believe that our approach is reasonable, proportionate and fair to all EU citizens, and application is free of charge for those who hold valid permanent residence documentation or indefinite leave to remain, and for children looked after by local authorities.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time; she is very generous. She is highlighting the fact that the scheme, or elements of it, has been agreed with the European Union. Can she give a cast-iron guarantee that all the measures she is talking about will be in place, regardless of the outcome of the meaningful vote and what happens after this place has decided on the deal brought forward by the Prime Minister?
Caroline Nokes
It is important that we give reassurance to EU citizens living here. As the former Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), made very clear, I believe, in one of his Select Committee appearances, this is a solid commitment to EU citizens, who we want to stay. I think one hon. Member might have raised the spectre of this, but we are certainly not going to remove EU citizens.
Moving on to some of the comments that hon. Members have made, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) spoke about employers. That is an important point. I was pleased to be at the launch of the employers’ toolkit that we have been making available to employers since much earlier in the summer, which was designed hand in hand with employers. I am conscious that they play a significant role in communicating to their employees how the scheme will work. We are already working with specific employers, NHS trusts and now universities as part of the testing phase. The toolkit has been welcomed and is useful, and it is designed to enable employers to help their employees through the process.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised a number of points. I want to focus on a productive meeting that I had yesterday with the Scottish Government Minister for Europe, Migration and International Development, as part of a series of meetings I have undertaken to have specifically with him, but also with representatives of the Welsh Government and local government. It is important that we engage widely both with parts of the United Kingdom and with local authorities where there is a significant impact. We know that when people feel uneasy at times, they are likely to turn to local government or the devolved Administrations for support.
The Scottish Minister raised with me, as indeed he did in the summer, the question of fees and the undertaking by the Scottish Government to pay the fees for those working in certain sectors and perhaps for their own employees. He and I discussed yesterday the issue of taxation, and I undertook to raise that matter with the Treasury. I understand, and I hope I am correct in this, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the same undertaking to the Home Affairs Committee this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman also specifically raised those who exercise rights as carers as Zambrano, Chen, Ibrahim or Teixeira cases. We have indicated that those resident as Zambrano cases are not protected by the draft withdrawal agreement, but we have decided as a matter of domestic policy to protect them. We consider that their current rights do not lead to a right of permanent residence under EU law, but a new UK status will be made available to them, as it will be for Chen, Ibrahim and Teixeira cases.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of landlords. I was very pleased, as Immigration Minister, to reconvene the landlords panel, which I co-chair with Lord Best. We met recently and, with a group of representatives of landlord organisations, went through the digital right-to-work check, which we will mirror for landlords with a digital right-to-rent check. It is a straightforward process, and the landlord representatives present were impressed with the way the right-to-work check already works. We will roll that out for landlords to make their checks as easy as possible.
The test phases majored on by some Members are exactly that—tests. It is very important that we make sure the scheme works as it is rolled out. We started deliberately in a very small and controlled way, and have expanded it significantly in phase 2. As my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness mentioned, it will be expanded much more widely in the second part of phase 2 testing. We expected there to be bugs and to need to make technical fixes. That was part of the reason for testing.
Afzal Khan
I asked the Minister many questions, many of which have not been answered. Will she undertake to get those answers to me? She also mentioned the discussions taking place on Apple phones. Is she able to enlighten us on how long those discussions will carry on? Is she aware of the face recognition difficulties with Android phones that I mentioned?
Caroline Nokes
As I indicated just a moment ago, we are conscious that there have been several technical bugs. A good example was the system not recognising hyphenated surnames, which we were able to fix in phase 1 of the scheme. Some additional technical issues have been flagged up in phase 2, and we are working extensively to overcome them. I will not give a timeline for the resolution of the challenges with Apple phones, suffice it to say that a really constructive discussion is ongoing. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a very persuasive man, and I am sure that we will reach a resolution as soon as possible.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister has made a lot of helpful comments in response to some of our questions. Two remain, but I do not know if she can answer them today. First, will she simply clarify why there is a discrepancy between the statement of intent and the immigration rules in relation to the non-exercise of EU rights being a ground for refusal? Secondly, will she revisit why we have to have this severe cut-off point? What will happen to people who do not apply in time before the end of the scheme?
Caroline Nokes
We have indicated that there will be a proportionate approach to those who do not apply in time, which I am very conscious could be for very good reason, such as ill health. It is important that we do not penalise people who have every right to be here. We are determined to be as welcoming as possible. We are working to make sure that we articulate that properly, not only through our communications but through the immigration rules.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I reassure hon. Members that at no point throughout this process have we underestimated the challenge of granting immigration status to more than 3 million people. However, we have made a strong start, and we have everything in place to make this whole process a success.
Matt Warman
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for giving actual answers to questions—that is not unusual for this Minister, but it is unusual for some—and I am pleased that that thanks was echoed by the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson as well. Some of these interesting and important questions have been answered.
However, I end with the point that I made earlier. When people are worried that their lives and livelihoods will be affected, we in the House have a duty to communicate that, while this scheme is not perfect, it has made a very strong start and will, I hope, provide those 3 million people with rapid reassurance. For us to scaremonger would be irresponsible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the EU settled status scheme.
Written Statements
Competitiveness Council 29 and 30 November
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
The Internal Market and Industry Day of the Competitiveness Council will take place on 29 November 2018 where the right hon. Lord Henley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, will represent the UK; and the Research and Space Day on 30 November 2018 where I will represent the UK.
Day one—internal market and industry
The Internal Market And Industry Day will consider a number of legislative items including general approaches on the proposed regulations on platform-to-business relations and the general safety of vehicles and a partial general approach on the proposed single market programme as part of the next multi-annual financial framework. The Council is expected to adopt conclusions on a future EU industrial policy strategy, and Ministers will have an exchange of views on the future of the single market.
Under any other business there will be an update on the proposed regulation on supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products; information from the presidency on the functioning of the EU on certain categories of horizontal aid, and on the REACH review in the light of industrial competitiveness; a report of the SME envoy network; and information from the Czech, Finnish, Danish and Irish delegations on a study entitled “Making EU Trade in Services Work for All—Enhancing Innovation and Competitiveness throughout the EU Economy”. The day will conclude with information from the incoming Romanian presidency on its proposed work programme.
Day two—research and space
The Research And Space Day will begin with a session on space during which the Council will review the progress report and exchange views on the regulation establishing the space programme of the Union.
The Council will then begin the research session with the adoption of conclusions on the Governance of the European research area.
The Council will then discuss the Horizon Europe package—framework programme for research and innovation 2021-27. The Council will seek to first agree on a partial general approach for the framework programme and its rules for participation and dissemination and secondly it will discuss the progress report for the specific programme implementing Horizon Europe.
Day two will conclude with any other business. The presidency will first provide information on the Evolution of Europe’s space activities: long-term perspective (Space conference) (Graz, 5-6 November 2018). The day will conclude with information from the incoming Romanian presidency on its proposed work programme.
[HCWS1115]
Ivory Bill: Lords Amendments and EVEL
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I have today published a written submission outlining the Government’s analysis of how the English votes for English laws principle relates to all Lords amendments to the Ivory Bill.
The Department’s assessment is that the amendments do not change the territorial application of the Bill. The analysis holds if all the Lords amendments be accepted.
I have deposited a copy of the submission in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1114]
Offensive Weapons Bill Memorandum
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I am today placing in the Library of the House the Department’s analysis on the application of Standing Order 83L in respect of the Government amendments tabled for Commons Report stage for the Offensive Weapons Bill Scheduled for 28 November 2018.
[HCWS1117]
DNA Evidence: Immigration Applications
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
I am providing an update on progress made following my statement to the House on 25 October on the Home Office’s use of DNA evidence in immigration applications.
I would like to reiterate that no one should have faced a demand to supply DNA evidence and no one should have been penalised for not providing it. I have apologised to those affected by this practice and committed to get to the bottom of what has gone on in relation to DNA evidence.
On 8 November the Home Office published new overarching policy guidance on the use of DNA evidence in the whole of the borders, immigration and citizenship system on gov.uk. This guidance makes clear that the Home Office cannot mandate individuals to provide DNA evidence, or draw any negative inferences from non-provision. However, it also makes clear that individuals can volunteer such evidence to demonstrate a biological relationship. It will help to ensure there is a consistent approach across the whole BICS system and it will be used in parallel with guidance on individual routes and schemes (e.g. Gurkhas).
The Home Office is also arranging bespoke training sessions with frontline staff to ensure that operational practice aligns with the overarching policy position on the use of DNA evidence. The published guidance related to Gurkhas has been corrected and reissued.
On 24 October I established a taskforce so that anyone who feels that their case may have been influenced in any way by an inappropriate demand for DNA testing, can receive advice and support. Details of how to contact the taskforce were sent to hon. Members and publicised on Home Office social media channels as well as on gov.uk. As of 14 November, the telephone helpline had received a total of 25 calls. Seventeen of these calls have been referred to the taskforce and are being actively reviewed.
We will arrange reimbursement for individuals who contact us using the helpline, if the individual has suffered financial loss because the Home Office required DNA evidence from them when we should not have.
Likewise we will proactively contact individuals who are known to have been required to provide DNA evidence and did so, to arrange reimbursement.
The vast majority of outstanding Operation Fugal cases I referred to in my statement have now been concluded and Home Office officials are continuing to work to conclude any remaining cases as soon as possible.
Some cases will take longer to conclude where we have requested further information to help us make a decision. There are a number of cases we are currently unable to conclude where there are outstanding criminal proceedings, although to date there have been no criminal charges brought against any individuals as a result of Operation Fugal.
I can now confirm that I have appointed Darra Singh OBE to conduct the independent assessment on the Home Office’s approach to establishing the numbers involved, the operational response, the policy response and the extent to which follow-up training and communications have addressed the issue. Darra brings significant experience, skills and credibility to this task.
I stated that I will review more broadly our structures and processes to ensure that they deliver a system in a way that is fair and humane. I am considering what form that review will take and I will provide an update to the House in due course.
[HCWS1116]
House of Lords
Death of a Former Member: Baroness Trumpington
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of our much-loved colleague and friend the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on 26 November. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
Schools: Mental Health Support
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to develop mental health support in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, many schools already promote their pupils’ mental health and we are providing significant new support to them. In July, we confirmed our commitment to train mental health leads in schools to develop whole-school approaches to promoting and supporting good mental health. But schools cannot act as mental health experts, so we will also provide increased specialist support from new, clinically supervised mental health support teams.
Lord Storey (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. He will be aware that 65% of children and young people who have mental health problems currently get no support. I am aware of the trailblazers but they will take time to be established and teach good practice. We have a resource in schools which, sadly, is underfunded. It has too many vacancies and spends all its time on its statutory responsibility of reviewing cases under the Children and Families Act—I mean, and thus mention, our educational psychologists. Why can we not provide extra resources so that educational psychologists who are in post can do this work to provide support for children and young people with mental health problems?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we are improving specialist children’s and young people’s mental health services with our £1.5 billion investment from 2015. We recognise that we need to do more, which is why the NHS will invest at least £2 billion a year in mental health, including children’s services, under the recent Budget proposals. Our Green Paper proposals are about providing support quickly through teams directly linked to schools and testing four-week waiting times for more specialist follow-up. We are absolutely not complacent about this vital area.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, frequently children with ME are diagnosed as having a mental health problem at school, which leads them into child protection proceedings. Can the Minister please ensure that the people responsible are aware of the fact that ME is not a mental health condition so that these children are not treated as mental health patients?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, that is the reason why we are rolling out mental health training in schools. Since April last year, we have already trained 1,300 teachers across 1,000 schools to increase awareness of subjects such as the one the noble Countess raises.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the number of school nurses and counsellors has dramatically decreased over the past few years. Can the Minister confirm this? What is the role of school nurses and counsellors, or do they no longer have one because they have disappeared?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, it is up to individual schools to deploy their resources as they see fit. Where school counsellors provide an important role, I am sure they are used, but as I said in answer to the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, we are deploying more resources into this area in schools.
Lord Polak (Con)
Is the Minister aware that the Jewish Leadership Council has just launched a scheme to improve mental health in schools? Trained counsellors/well-being practitioners are being recruited to five schools—two primary schools, Rimon and Broughton Jewish, and three secondary schools, JFS, JCoSS and Yavneh College—for a three-year pilot. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Yavneh College, Spencer Lewis, the head teacher, and the staff as, according to the Sunday Times, it has just been announced as the best performing non-selective school in the country?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, many faith schools are high performing and achieve consistently high exam results. I am happy to join my noble friend in congratulating Yavneh College. Many of the best schools focus on well-being as an intrinsic part of their job, so I welcome the initiatives highlighted by my noble friend. Promoting well-being can help prevent problems arising or escalating, ensuring that both the school and pupils are provided with the tools they need to achieve the best results.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, while I am grateful for the increased funding that is now available for mental health services for young people, is the Minister aware of the real difficulties facing young people in a crisis situation? I am thinking of a 14 year-old who asked his father to take him to the GP because he was afraid he might do something silly. The GP sat and listened very sympathetically, but then said, “I’m afraid there’s very little I can do for you. If I give you a referral to CAHMS, you probably won’t get an appointment for a year”. Is that not a crisis situation?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, there are always going to be individual incidents such as that, and that is why we have made such a big commitment to increasing mental health funding over the few next years, including for children’s mental health. As I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, improving awareness of mental health issues, such as the trauma just mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, will help us deal with these cases.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that having a few people trained in every school does not mean you will get throughput unless you have basic awareness among the staff? That can be achieved only by continuous professional development structured in an awareness package, so that you get to the people you are training.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we are introducing mental health training as part of teacher training. We are beginning a voluntary scheme in September next year, and that will become a compulsory part of teacher training programmes. Returning to the earlier point about funding, we aim to add another 8,000 mental health professionals to the system over the next few years.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, may I add another element to this vital debate? It is about all schools having a school garden. I shall quote from a recent report by the King’s Fund:
“The mental health benefits of gardening are broad and diverse. Studies have shown significant reductions in depression and anxiety”,
and “improved social functioning”. This costs unbelievably little, and lessons can be based around it. In my time running the London Food Board, I put many gardens into London schools, and the effects were dramatic. The cost is as little as 50 quid—with a bit of volunteering—and it has a permanent, long-term effect.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I strongly support the noble Baroness’s comments on children’s exposure to outdoor activities. There is a very good trust, the Country Trust, which takes children on to farms in the same spirit as just mentioned. I think this is enormously important. I am the Minister responsible for the disposal of land in schools, and I intervene weekly to ensure that land used for such outdoor pursuits is not disposed of.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not realise that the answer he gave to the right reverend Prelate about it taking a year to get help for a child in need was extraordinarily disappointing? Can nothing be done to deal with these urgent cases, about which the right reverend Prelate made such a persuasive point?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we are committing to and experimenting with much shorter waiting times in the NHS to bring that down to four weeks. The rollout of the trailblazers will be in exactly the same spirit: to learn best practice, which we can then adopt across the whole system.
Local Government
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pinnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the planned local government fair funding allocation will provide local authorities with the resources needed to provide sufficient and effective local services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to say that we are making good progress on the development of a funding formula that aims to provide a simple, transparent and accurate link between local authority relative needs and resources and available funding. The new funding formula will sit alongside the conclusions of the planned spending review, which will settle how much money is available to local authorities.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. I hope he is aware—I am sure he is—that the Institute for Fiscal Studies reports that, in the past eight years, real-terms spending on council services has fallen on average by 24% per person and in more deprived communities by up to 35% per person. Simply dividing this shrunken pot in a different way will fail to address the real and serious problem of the underfunding of local services. Will fair funding ensure that the total available is significantly higher than it is now?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a persuasive point, but as I have just indicated, these are two separate things that are sitting alongside each other. The fair funding formula will be looking at redressing some of the imbalances that exist at the moment in a relative sense, but alongside that of course is the spending review next year, which, hopefully, will be doing some of the things that the noble Baroness and I—and, indeed, many others—would want it to do.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, this is an incredibly complex area in which there is great misunderstanding. I have an enormous amount of time for the Minister. Perhaps he would explain to the House how there is going to be a fair distribution formula when the whole system from 2020 depends on local council tax and revenue raising locally and the distribution of the business rate, which falls where it falls?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. The formula that we are looking at is in essence about redistribution. It is in three separate phases. The first is to look at the relative needs of different areas. The consultation on that has concluded and we will be publishing its results when the second phase of the consultation, looking at relative resources, starts in December. The third stage, which will be in late spring or summer next year, will look at allocations and transitional arrangements. The noble Lord is right that the situation has its complexities; there is a simplicity about the aims, but the difficulty will be in their delivery. As I say, though, that sits alongside looking at resources and the spending review that will go alongside it, so those are two separate matters. The business rate retention scheme, at 75%, will also kick in when the fair funding formula comes in, in April 2020.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
Does the Minister agree that with £15 billion of reductions for local government by 2020, the local government sector has done more than its fair share of ensuring that the burden that the country has carried since the previous Government were in power has been met, that that equates to 60p in the pound in central government funding and that a fair funding review must make sure that no council is worse off than it currently is?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My noble friend always, understandably, makes a powerful case for local authorities. He will be aware that in the Budget we added money for adult and children’s social care. As I said, the fair funding formula is not about adding to the pot—that will, I hope, be done in the spending review next year.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, we are all aware that many councils, in particular county councils, are facing serious financial problems. Within the UK, we now have devolved Administrations, combined authorities, metro mayors and city deals, all with varying tax-raising powers offering different degrees of fiscal autonomy. Does the Minister agree that the two-tier system is now the Cinderella of local government, and is it not time for the Government seriously to consider offering all councils similar powers before it is too late?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Where I agree with the noble Baroness is that the system is already quite complex. Although she referred to the devolved Administrations, these particular issues will not affect Wales or Scotland—not directly anyway—nor, indeed, Northern Ireland; they are just about England. She has a point about the need for simplicity, and that runs through the review. It is aiming to be simple and transparent. That is why we are taking our time on it and why we are doing it in this way. As I said, noble Lords and others will see the results of the first stage of that consultation when we publish it next month.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise the fundamental flaw in his argument? He says that the fair funding review will not bring any new funds and he could not assure the noble Lord, Lord Porter, that no council would lose money. If some will get increased funding and there is no new money in the pot, others will lose money. Local authorities have had a £16 billion cut in their funding, while costs have risen. How much longer can the Government keep shoving costs and responsibilities on to local authorities while not paying for them?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as always, the noble Baroness makes a powerful point, but it is not a point on the Question. The Question is about the fair funding formula, which is about relativity, not increased spending. That is the point I was keen to make. There are issues about increased spending, but not from the fair funding formula; they are for the spending review. I also pointed out that in the Budget there were increases in spending for local authorities on adult and children’s social care. That is a fact and there is no denying it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I make the case on behalf of sparsely populated rural counties, such as Lincolnshire. The truth is that rural counties have never been fully funded because the sparsity factor has not fully been taken into account.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend makes a powerful point for an area that he knows well. Sparsity and population density are very much centre stage in the fair funding review and will be taken full account of.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, an important public service that has been and continues to be cut is public health. Directors of public health tell me that they can spend money extremely cost-effectively. Are the Government doing any research into the public health interventions carried out by local authorities, to let everybody know what works?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness the assurance that the public health grant is to be incorporated into local spending by virtue of business rate retention. We are proceeding rather slowly on this because we are keen to ensure that the assurance arrangements are fully recognised to cover the points she makes.
Gambling Industry
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the sufficiency of current industry contributions to efforts to reduce gambling-related harm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, protecting vulnerable people from harm is central to gambling regulation. Operators must prevent underage gambling and train staff to intervene if a person is in difficulty. They must provide information on accessing help. The Gambling Commission also requires a financial contribution to research, education and treatment. Our review set out measures to strengthen protections across the industry, as well as a system for funding support. Donations this year are well on track to meet targets.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply and am glad that the Government will increase the remote gaming duty next year. But in a year in which Simon Stevens pointed out that problem gambling is costing the NHS between £260 million and £1.2 billion a year, and the gambling industry made a total return of £13.9 billion, is it not time that we moved away from the voluntary levy to a compulsory levy which significantly contributes to research and treatment?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, there are a number of issues there. First, the figures quoted by the right reverend Prelate apply to the total cost of gambling, not just to the NHS. Of course, he did not mention the other side of the equation, which is the £2.86 billion in gambling taxes, apart from national insurance, corporation and income tax, which the gambling industry raises to help pay for the NHS. We recognise the need for reliable evidence on the wider impact of gambling-related harm, so work is under way to bill this. On the funding itself, for treatment, it is our priority to strengthen the voluntary system and build our understanding of what is needed. We have always said that we want to see operators step up, and I am glad to say that donations are on track to meet GambleAware’s targets. If the actions to improve the voluntary system do not bring results, we will consider other options, but we do not consider it necessary at this stage.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, when I was responsible for gaming in the Home Office back in 1995, the rule was that firms could not do anything to stimulate demand. Casinos had a 48-hour membership and gambling companies were not even allowed to advertise in Yellow Pages. Given the disastrous consequences of this deregulation, with ads appearing on daytime television and in sport, is it not time that we reverted to when we had a workable and efficient policy?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, for most people—the vast majority of people—gambling is not a problem; problem gambling is less than 1%. But I take my noble friend’s point that, for a small number of people, gambling can be a problem, and advertising could contribute to it. There is no reliable evidence on the extent to which it contributes, but we are putting tough new guidance into advertising to protect vulnerable people, including children. A large advertising public service campaign is being put out to promote responsible gambling. But advertising is one of the things we are considering, so I shall take my noble friend’s point on board.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, on previous occasions when we have looked at gambling and fixed-odds betting terminals were considered, there was a perceptible measure of support for the rather humble measures we proposed, which have now been accepted. I suspect that the mandatory rather than the voluntary levy would command equal support from all Benches. Although I am repeating the Question asked by the right reverend Prelate, I ask again: how long do we have to wait for studies in an industry that generates an enormous amount of money—so much so that one person can have a pay rise of £45 million? It would not be onerous to ask for a mandatory rather than a voluntary levy, which I am sure is the next step that as a House we should responsibly be advocating.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The question is why you would want to introduce a mandatory levy. At the moment, GambleAware gets more than the money it asks for. It says it needs £10 million a year, and it is getting an extra £5 million from penalty payments, so it is getting more than it asks for. As I said, if we find that there is a need for more money and the voluntary system is not producing it, we will consider other options.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I think the House will be somewhat surprised that the noble Lord is suggesting that more money is not needed. There are 430,000 problem gamblers in this country, and currently only 2% of them are getting help. Does the Minister not find it odd that we have a compulsory horse-based levy that brings in £70 million to help horses, and we have a voluntary levy that brings in £10 million to help people?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
It is a mistake to say that the racing levy is there to help horses, although a small proportion of it is for veterinary reasons. It is there to help the racing industry and the people who work in it. By the way, a lot of people complain about that levy too. We have asked the industry to contribute, voluntarily, to research, education and treatment. We have said that if it does not produce enough, we will look at other options. Just because the industry has a large gross gambling yield—not profit but yield, which is different and before payment of expenses—that does not mean that we should, for the sake of it, increase the levy and have a compulsory one.
Television Licences: Over 75s
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to maintain free television licences for those over the age of 75.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, we know that people across the country value television as a way to stay connected with the world. The Government have guaranteed free licences for those over 75 until 2020. We agreed with the BBC that responsibility for the concession will transfer to it in 2020. It confirmed that no decisions will be taken until the public have been fully consulted, but we have been clear on our expectation that the BBC will continue the concession.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, in its manifesto the Conservative Party actually promised free TV licences for the over-75s until 2022. However, the BBC is currently consulting on “what, if any” licence fee concession should be in place for older people from June 2020. The ONS classifies the BBC licence fee as a tax. Will the Minister point to the section in the royal charter that gives the BBC the power to levy taxes? He will recall that he said, on 29 March 2017:
“I reiterate that taxation is a matter for the elected Government”.—[Official Report, 29/3/17; col. 624.]
Does he still stand by that statement and will he join me in calling on the BBC to withdraw this disgraceful consultation?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The BBC is doing exactly what it agreed when the settlement was put in place in 2015. We agreed at that time to provide a continuous licence fee, increasing by inflation, for five years. That had never been done before. We agreed to close the iPlayer loophole, which was what it wanted. In return, the BBC agreed to take on this concession. However, we have been clear that we expect the BBC to continue with this important concession. It was agreed by the BBC, Parliament and the Government.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Speaking as one who declares an interest as I was 82 last Sunday, should the director-general not look at his own house? For instance, why should he not look at the Peacock report, which proposed that the BBC should take advertisements in certain circumstances? After all, the BBC World Service takes them and—your Lordships may study this—there are about three minutes of propaganda for forthcoming programmes in every hour of BBC programmes, ad nauseam.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The director-general of the BBC should be proud when he looks at himself in the mirror. The BBC is a national institution and the Government support it. We made a deal with it when the new charter was put in place. It is a £5 billion organisation and is more than capable of delivering on this agreement.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in this age of multichannel provision, our public service broadcasters—not least the BBC—are crucial in ensuring the provision of high-quality, British programming and news that we can rely on. Yet if the BBC does not go ahead with cutting the over-75 licence fee concession, its own content will be dramatically cut. Why should the BBC be forced to make a social policy decision that should be the remit of government? If the Government want the fee concession for over-75s protected then surely they should pay for it, not the BBC.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Lord talks about news but other public service broadcasters have the same duty to provide impartial news. I completely agree with him that what the BBC produces is a benefit, and it is a tribute to it. Other public service broadcasters have the same duty but they do not have a £3.8 billion head start from the taxpayer.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister answered my noble friend’s question. If it was a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party that the licence fee concession would continue until 2022, why have the Government subcontracted it to the BBC to break that manifesto commitment? Does he regard the licence fee as a tax and, if so, do the Government subcontract taxes to other people?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I think that the noble Lord misunderstands the position. We made it absolutely clear to the BBC that we expect it to continue with this important concession, and in October the Secretary of State also made that clear to the House of Commons committee. However, the Digital Economy Act, which was passed before that, also made it clear that the Government retain the power to maintain the concession until 2020, which we will do, after which full responsibility will transfer to the BBC. Therefore, the settlement took place before the manifesto was written.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Would it not be good if the director-general of the BBC occasionally came to this House, of which he is a Member, to assist us in discussions of this kind?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am not sure that that would be helpful—for a number of reasons but mainly because it is very important that the BBC’s director-general, who is the editor-in-chief of the BBC, stays clear of politics as much as he can.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think I am alone in struggling to understand exactly what the Minister is telling us. Can he confirm that, when the settlement with the BBC was made, it was made clear to it by the Government that it would receive the five-year funding uplift on condition that it continued to maintain the free licence for over-75s? If that is the case, effectively the BBC’s licence fee income was cut. Can he confirm that that is the case? If it is not, presumably the BBC has the autonomy to do as it pleases and determine the outcome of the licence for the over-75s.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Baroness is quite right: the BBC has the autonomy to do as it pleases. Responsibility in this area was handed over to it in the Digital Economy Act with Parliament’s agreement. So far as the first part of her question is concerned, it is true that that was agreed in the settlement, and that is why the director-general of the BBC said:
“The government’s decision here to put the cost of the over-75s on us has been more than matched by the deal coming back for the BBC”.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Claims Management Activity) Order 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 November.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 27th November 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 View all Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 117-R-II Second marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (23 Nov 2018)
15:45 - Division on Amendment 29 - Ayes: 277 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 29 agreed.
“Rights to information11A(1) Prior to the authorisation process, the cared-for person must be fully informed of their rights.(2) The responsible body must take such steps as are practicable to ensure that the cared-for person and any appropriate person or Independent Mental Capacity Advocate representing and supporting them understand the possible outcome of the assessments, the reasons why the cared-for person may be deprived of their liberty and their rights—(a) to request an Approved Mental Capacity Professional’s assessment and review of the arrangements,(b) to advocacy, and(c) to challenge the authorisation in court.(3) If an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate is appointed under Part 5, the advocate is to take such steps as are practicable to help the cared-for person and the appropriate person to understand the following matters—(a) the steps involved in the authorisation process,(b) the purpose, duration and effect of the authorisation,(c) any conditions to which the authorisation is subject,(d) the reasons why the cared-for person met the qualifying requirements in question,(e) the right to object to the authorisation and the right to request a review by an Approved Mental Capacity Professional,(f) the outcome of a review of the arrangements,(g) the relevant rights of the cared-for person,(h) how the cared-for person may exercise relevant rights.(4) In this paragraph, “relevant rights” includes the right to make an application to the court to challenge an authorisation decision in court under section 21ZA and the right to request a review of the arrangements.(5) The responsible body must ensure that cases are referred to court when the cared-for person’s right to a court review is engaged.”
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
In moving Amendment 29, I shall speak also to Amendment 86, having added my name to both. My noble friend Lady Hollins originally tabled this amendment, which is associated with rights to information. She is unfortunately unable to be here, so in her absence I will articulate the points on behalf of us both, without repeating many of the arguments made at Second Reading. The amendments are supported by many third sector bodies, including the Royal Mencap Society, Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, the Alzheimer’s Society, Disability Rights UK, Inclusion London, Liberty, VoiceAbility, the National Autistic Society, Sense and others.
As it stands, there is a fundamental imbalance in the proposals, with the power in many cases lying with health and social care providers and the responsible body. These amendments seek to partially redress that balance, in part by ensuring that critical information is provided to the individual concerned, the person being cared for, and those advocating on their behalf.
Under the first part of Amendment 29, the individual would receive information about their rights in advance. This is critical, as is having someone—an appropriate person or advocate—to explain things to the person in a way meaningful to them. VoiceAbility, which provides advocacy for people who may lack capacity and their families, has received feedback from families that having information clearly explained to them up front can help dispel many misunderstandings and myths that can escalate to the person being cared for being very unsettled.
Knowing the reasons why you were detained, and what you can do about it if you are not happy with your conditions or placement, is important. Similarly, the knowledge that you can ask for a review or challenge the decision can help to reduce the stress and anxiety that many people face—even if the person does not at the outset wish to exercise their rights to review or challenge.
Information should, of course, be provided in an appropriate format, which is clear, easy to understand and takes account of any communication difficulties that individuals or their families have. Providing people with just written information is not enough. Some people may require easy-read information in jargon-free, plain English. Others should have the opportunity to speak to somebody and ask questions. Some families may need a translator, and some individuals may need sign language such as Makaton to fully understand the situation they find themselves in. There is very limited knowledge about DoLS and even less about the proposed LPS, and it is therefore critical that people understand the process they are entering.
The Bill requires the responsible body to complete an authorisation record containing important information for the cared-for person. It does not, however, require that this information be automatically provided to the cared-for person, their family or an advocate. The second part of Amendment 29 and Amendment 86 address this by ensuring that the responsible body provides the cared-for person and any advocate with information about the outcome of the authorisation, what it means and the reasons why their liberty may be deprived. As before, this must be provided in a format that is appropriate for them and easy to understand. It must also detail the person’s rights to challenge the assessment and request an intervention from an approved mental capacity professional, their right to advocacy and how to challenge the authorisation should they so wish. People often feel disempowered in this situation, and in many cases simply accept inappropriate provision without understanding that they can challenge it. Finally, these amendments would ensure that information is provided relevant to the process of how to challenge their individual assessment and, in turn, the fact that their liberty is being deprived.
Advocacy must play a central role in this Bill. The amendment recognises this by spelling out the functions of an IMCA at this critical juncture for the cared-for person. This includes helping the individual to understand the process, the assessment itself and the result of that assessment, as well as how they can exercise their rights of challenge.
I hope the Minister recognises that these amendments are an important addition to ensuring that people are empowered throughout the process. I look forward to his response. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to some of the amendments in this group, most notably Amendment 88. I endorse everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, said in her introduction. It is paramount that those detained under this legislation, and their friends and family who care for them, must know in exact detail that they are being detained under a law that stipulates that their detention should be the least restrictive option for their care and what their rights are.
In speaking to my amendment, I wish to return to a theme I have spoken to throughout our discussions: the role of a code of practice. As I said in our previous discussions on the right to information—as set out in cols. 335-38 of Hansard on 15 October—there is a fair amount of unease and disquiet among stakeholders about the Government’s understanding of the duty to provide information and its place in legislation. It is important to state again that statutory codes do not exist without a statute, and the majority of laws do not have a code of practice. Codes are there only for when non-legal people are using a law directly. No one expects non-legal people to read or necessarily understand a statute and so a code is provided. Such a code follows what is in statute and sets it out in lay terms and at length. But it would not exist if the obligation in law was not clearly set out.
We have had some case law about the Mental Capacity Act code of practice. In 2018, in the case of An NHS Trust and others (Respondents) v Y, the Supreme Court said:
“Whatever the weight given to the Code by section 42 of the MCA 2005, it does not create an obligation as a matter of law to apply to court in every case”.
In the Mental Health Act code, which has been in force for a very long time, and to which the original drafters of the Mental Capacity Act looked when drawing up the legislation back in 2005, there is an explicit duty on hospital managers to provide information to a person who is detained and to the relevant interested persons responsible for their welfare.
No doubt the department will stick to its line that a code of practice is adequate. However, for the reasons I have outlined, which I think are compelling, we do not. I therefore simply wish to indicate that if the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, is minded to push her amendment to a vote, she will have support from this side of the House.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I too support Amendments 29 and 86 and others in this group.
It is essential that the cared-for person and their appropriate person and/or advocate are provided with information about the reasons for the cared-for person’s detention and their rights to review and also to challenge. It is a fundamental human right under Article 5 of the ECHR. Both the Mental Health Act and the DoLS contain clear obligations to take steps to help the person understand their situation and their rights; and the DoLS set out a clear statutory list of those entitled to copies of the authorisation and the assessment.
Despite this, the Bill is silent on these rights to information. The Minister has suggested that the person could request the information by making a subject access request under the GDPR. I agree with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which does not accept this as an adequate substitute. This misunderstands the obligation, which is a right to be informed, not a right to request information. It is highly unrealistic to expect a person subject to the LPS to think that they would know to make this request and be able to do so.
Meanwhile, the person’s family would have no obvious rights to this information unless, of course, they held a lasting power of attorney or deputyship, and most will not. At the moment, requests for personal data are managed through the MCA code’s guidance, with data being disclosed only if it is in the best interests of the person. In practice, families, and even advocates, are often shut out of decision-making and consultations about the person, and can experience obstruction in trying to access vital information like this. The Bill should be compatible with the ECHR, not on promises of what might possibly be in the code—as my noble friend Lady Barker has just stated.
The Minister has confirmed that the code of practice is statutory and that it must be followed unless there is good reason not to do so. However, this is not the main problem. In some places the code is being asked to effectively establish rights and duties instead of explaining or elaborating on them. Duties to provide information about the authorisation and clear-cut rights to obtain copies of the authorisation documentation are an important example. A code cannot be used to achieve this.
I remind the House of a recent example in which the MCA code of practice said that certain very serious decisions—such as withdrawal of artificial nutrition or hydration—could be taken only by the court of protection. Peers were reassured in Parliament that that was the case and shown a draft copy of the code of practice, which stated it clearly. However, the Supreme Court ruled this year that that was not the case in law and that the MCA code of practice not only misstated the legal situation but could not establish a duty where none had existed. Consequently, if there is a need for a hard-edged duty or right, that needs to be put into legislation, not in the code.
I therefore urge the Minister that in this Bill we must have the provisions to provide the person with information about their situation and their rights, and also clear statutory entitlements to copies of the relevant documentation for those supporting and representing them.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 49, 85 and 87, which are in my name, complement Amendment 29—which, like others, I strongly support. Information to the family and those who care deeply about the welfare of the person is the cared-for person’s safeguard against exploitation or bad care or simply having their needs ignored. It is paramount that families have a role to play in the care planning of their relatives, not least by giving them the option to stay fully informed and to object to the proposed plans if they are unsatisfied.
When an assessment happens at one point it is easy to collate all the information, get it signed off and then forget that every day until the scheduled review is a day to be lived by the cared-for person. If the conditions laid out in the authorisation are not adhered to, if the person is not empowered as much as possible to be both mentally and physically active, gradual inactivity and a slipping decline set in.
The care itself is important. Certainly, quality of care will vary between care homes and within them, but monitoring the care plan is central to ensuring that the cared-for person’s dignity is maintained. Their quality of life depends on how they are treated day in, day out, as well as whether they receive care in a way that enhances their personal dignity or, shamefully, they are treated as though they are of less worth. It is therefore imperative to ensure that the cared-for person is placed at the heart of the LPS authorisation process, which is why I want all those consulted in the initial process, as laid out in paragraph 17(2), to be able to access easily the care and support plan. Being able to apply for it is not enough; many people may not even know that they are able to apply to look at it. Relatives will notice if the care plan states that something is not happening and question why.
The care plan and authorisation record must be available to the cared-for person, enabling them to keep track of what is supposed to be happening. For those with fluctuating capacity or less severe impairments, the sense of control and empowerment that this would give is completely in line with the ethos of the Mental Capacity Act. Where the cared-for person cannot monitor their care plan, they can still know, even in their short-term memory, whether they are getting what they should get. Those with specific responsibilities for the cared-for person’s welfare—such as the nominated representative, the donee of the lasting power of attorney for health and welfare or the court-appointed deputy—must have both the authorisation statement and the accompanying care plan.
The care plan must also be provided to the care team in the cared-for person’s place of residence, because where such a place is supported living, I am concerned that those who provide support and are not on a professional register may find that they are not given all the details. I strongly support Amendment 29, introduced so clearly by my noble friend Lady Watkins. People must know what their rights are and what will happen. This will not be costly; it will be far less costly than the court cases that are likely to come if the requirement to provide information about all aspects of the process and plan is not in the Bill.
Amendment 87 deals with what to do in the event of a dispute. It requires an AMCP to be appointed to explore the reasons for the dispute and assess the situation independently. If agreement cannot be reached, independent mediation must be sought before resorting to the adversarial processes of going to court. A group of family law solicitors has been working for over a year to develop a system of mediation to be used before a court proceeding in the Court of Protection. This type of dispute, where everyone agrees that a solution must be found in the interests of the cared-for person, lends itself well to mediation; it would be swifter, cost less than any court action and be far less traumatic for all concerned. If the principle of dealing with dispute is not in the Bill, can the Minister reassure the House that it will be dealt with in the code of practice?
Before I finish, I urge the Minister to recognise the strength of feeling about people needing to be given information about their rights. If he will not accept these amendments, will he agree to bring the lead amendment in this group back as a government amendment at Third Reading? Requiring adequate information-giving must be in the Bill; it cannot be left to the code of practice, nor deferred to the Commons stages. This is one of the most essential planks in ensuring that the care that should be given is given.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support the key amendments in this group. Amendment 29, to which my noble friend Lady Thornton added her name, would ensure that the responsible body has a duty to make sure that the cared-for person or the person representing them in an advocacy, professional or other capacity fully understands the rights of the cared-for person for whom deprivation of liberty is proposed, and the rights to challenge. Those rights also include specifically the rights to an independent and professional assessment, to a review of the LPS arrangements, to advocacy and support and to be able to challenge the LPS authorisation in court.
The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, made a strong case for rights to information to be on the face of the Bill, ably following on from the interventions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, during its previous stages. She spoke on the importance of this issue, particularly in respect to people with learning difficulties, and the need, wherever possible, to take steps to increase the cared-for person’s capacity to understand what is happening to them and to have as much involvement as possible to help them determine their wishes and feelings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, for introducing this group of amendments, both for her own speech and for representing the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, as she does. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. These amendments clearly relate to providing information to the cared-for person, which is a critical issue that we have debated throughout this Bill.
Amendments 49 and 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, require that the authorisation record must be provided to the cared-for person, or their representative, their donee of lasting power of attorney, or a court-appointed deputy, and also to the team providing care in the person’s place of residence. Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Thornton, specifies that the authorisation record must also include details of how the deprivation of liberty, or its effect on the person, will be reduced. I will deal with Amendment 29, the first amendment in this group, shortly.
I introduce these amendments in order to talk about less restrictive care. Less restrictive care is a central aspect of the new liberty protection safeguards, as a result of the necessary and proportionate assessment. This was emphasised by the Law Commission in its final report, which concluded that,
“integral to the question of whether the deprivation of liberty is proportionate (as well as necessary) is consideration of whether there is a less intrusive alternative”.
Less restrictive care is also a vital principle of the Mental Capacity Act—as set out in Section 1(5)—and therefore should be considered at all stages of the process. It is already considered as part of the current DoLS system.
Given the abiding role of “best interests”, as discussed in the last day of Committee, as a principle of the Mental Capacity Act, it does not need to be restated in the Bill. Indeed, our belief is that the liberty protection safeguards scheme will drive less restrictive care, as it will require the responsible body to specify a programme of regular reviews. This review should be triggered if there is a significant change in the cared-for person’s circumstances. Critically, this means that if there are practicable, less restrictive alternatives available, the authorisation will cease to have effect as the arrangements will no longer be necessary and proportionate.
Amendment 86, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins, Lady Thornton, Lady Jolly and Lady Watkins, would require the responsible body to ensure that the cared-for person, appropriate person and IMCA, or independent mental capacity advocate, are given a copy of the care plan as soon as possible and those consulted with should be provided with a copy unless there is good reason not to do so. As has been mentioned, this was discussed at every stage of the Bill, in the Chamber and outside it. I agree that it is vital that relevant people are given full information about the authorisation and the rights of a cared-for person, including rights to review and to challenge authorisation.
The key point, and the reason why we do not support these amendments, is that this is already the case in law, which clearly provides that people must be given appropriate information. This is required by Article 5 of the ECHR, as enacted into UK law by the Human Rights Act. Article 5(2) sets out that everyone deprived of their liberty must be informed promptly and in a language that he or she understands. This should set out the reasons for the deprivation of liberty. Where a person has been informed of the reasons, he or she may apply to a court to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in accordance with Article 5(4). It is plain from the wording of Article 5(2) that the duty on the state is to proactively provide specific information to the individual or their representative. Whether the information provided is sufficient must be assessed depending on circumstances, but, as a minimum, people must be given information in simple, non-technical language that they can understand.
It is also worth noting that the Law Commission’s draft Bill did not explicitly outline what information should be provided. The Government took forward the Law Commission’s approach, as we have been encouraged to throughout by noble Lords, because we are satisfied that Article 5 makes it clear that a person has the right to information. So while I have carefully considered whether the Bill should be amended to explicitly state what information should be provided, I believe that it would be better to set out specific details in the code of practice.
On the specific point from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about statutory codes of practice having to sit within a framework of law, the Human Rights Act, which enacts the ECHR into British law, provides the route into law. Therefore, I believe that the code of practice is the appropriate place and has that anchor in statute. Furthermore, it is appropriate to set this out in the code of practice because it will allow us to fully and accurately capture the detail of all the people who should be provided with information, exactly what information should be provided and how, and to be able to amend it without having to amend primary legislation over time.
One of the problems with the original DoLS legislation is that it is overly prescriptive. Indeed, this House found in its post-legislative scrutiny of the Mental Capacity Act that the provisions for DoLS were “overly complex”. These amendments set out, for example, who should be provided with the authorisation records, but they exclude others who might need the care plan, such as members of the care team providing support in the community, not in the person’s place of residence. We believe it is precisely that level of detail that is better set out in the code of practice.
Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins, Lady Thornton, Lady Jolly and Lady Watkins, specifically seeks to address this point. This amendment outlines that a person must be fully informed of their rights and ensure that appropriate persons and IMCAs understand their rights and duties. Further to this, Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, would require the cared-for person and their representative to be informed, in addition to any person likely to be carrying out the arrangements, if their authorisation ceases to have effect.
I absolutely agree that it is vital that people are informed of their rights. Let me be clear that this Bill does not take away or amend any rights. Article 5 is already clear that people have a right to information. However, we want to use the code of practice, rather than the Bill, to outline how this applies. As I said, this is so that we can provide a level of detail there that would simply not be appropriate in the Bill. We would also use the code to detail, for example, the role of the IMCA and/or the appropriate person’s role in the provision of information and ensuring that people are supported in understanding their rights.
In closing, I want to address Amendment 87 which supports, as it were, this set of amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, Amendment 87 would require an approved mental capacity professional to complete an investigation where the relevant parties disagree over any aspect of an authorisation. If agreement is still not reached, it would require independent mediation. I agree with her that it is vital that the new system of liberty protection safeguards ensures that the voice of the person is heard and that there is an appropriate level of scrutiny in all authorisations. That is why we have been explicit that the person must be consulted with, as we will discuss later, and why, as a result of government amendments brought forward after listening to noble Lords, if there is no appropriate person acting as a representative, there is now in effect a presumption that an IMCA should be appointed. Again we will discuss that later. It is also why we have tabled amendments to remove conflict of interest and to make clear who should and who should not carry out pre-authorisation reviews.
So while the Government recognise the important role that mediation plays within the NHS, we do not believe that it is necessary to make it a compulsory feature of the system. There are fantastic systems of mediation already available, through private, public and charitable sectors; indeed, the noble Baroness gave us an example of a further initiative in this area. It is worth noting, on this point, that the Mental Capacity Act code of practice already provides guidance about mediation. In answer to her specific question, while we do not think it is necessary to have it in the Bill, I can confirm that guidance on the use of mediation will be in the code of practice and we will make sure that that is as up to date as possible and comprehensive in taking account of new schemes.
I will finish by saying that while I applaud and recognise the importance of the right to information, not just for the cared-for person but for everybody representing them, the Government’s view is that this is already adequately accounted for in law, so we do not need to set it out in the Bill. Indeed, it may be counterproductive to do so, by not being able to be comprehensive of every category of person. For that reason, I fear that we are not able to support these amendments.
Baroness Barker
Can the Minister confirm that, if the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, is passed, it does not preclude the Government from setting out anything they like in the code of practice, at considerable length, to explain the detail of what information should be conveyed to whom and how? Does he agree that it might be helpful to have her amendment in the Bill, if only to bridge the rather large chasm between Article 5 rights and the code of practice? Would her amendment not be rather helpful?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
On the noble Baroness’s first point, of course there is nothing to stop us setting out anything in the code of practice. The concern would be whether there would be a clash between what was set out in the Bill and what was set out in the code of practice or in Article 5. That is one of our concerns and it is for that and other reasons that unfortunately we are not able to support that amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Does the noble Lord agree that one of the differences here between Article 5 rights normally and this group of people is that these are people who lack capacity to make their own decision, which is why they are being deprived of their liberty? They are particularly vulnerable and unable to speak up for themselves and depend on others. Therefore, if we have something in the Bill—and it may be that the wording in Amendment 29 is not right—brought back by the Government at Third Reading, we would know that there is an explicit right to information to be given to people when they lack capacity, as well as giving it to people when you have done everything to confirm that they have capacity for it.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I recognise the point that the noble Baroness is making. As I said, our belief is that the rights that currently exist, and are in no way amended or reduced as a result of the Bill, provide what she is asking for. Unfortunately, I am not able to give a commitment that we will be able to return to this issue at Third Reading.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock
I thank the Minster for his reply and thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this group of amendments. I do not believe that the Minister’s reply gives us sufficient security that if the information is contained only in the associated code patients and their families will be protected in the way that we have outlined. We firmly believe that the issue of information and, in particular, its provision in advance need to be in the Bill. It is therefore important that the House makes a statement to the Government about this issue, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
“11A_ The responsible body may authorise arrangements—(a) under paragraph 12, if the conditions in that paragraph are met, or(b) under paragraph 13 if—(i) the arrangements are care home arrangements,(ii) the responsible body decides that authorisation should be determined under that paragraph instead of under paragraph 12, and(iii) the conditions in paragraph 13 are met.”
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I should notify the House that if Amendment 31 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 32 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 31
Lord O’Shaughnessy
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for having changed the role of the care home manager. All the changes in the Government’s amendments have been welcomed. Almost all of my amendments in this group have fallen away, but I seek reassurance from the Minister that the authorisation process will include inspection of the proposals and conditions as set down in the care and support plan. This is because the necessary and proportionate test can be understood only in the context of the way that the care will be provided and how it will meet the wishes and feelings, as well as important information gleaned from the consultation process. The helpful diagram that was attached to the Minister’s letter of 15 November shows the factors, but I am unclear how they will be contextualised for the authorising body without the authorising body having access to a copy of the care and support plan. It is for that reason that I decided to speak to this group of amendments. I hope the Minister will be able to give me reassurance. This is about the process whereby the authorising body will know that it has accurate information that will affect the day-to-day care of the person. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I do not intend to pay much attention to many of the amendments in this group because the Government made significant moves last week in relation to the role of the care home manager.
In relation to Amendment 121, I take this opportunity to raise again an issue I mentioned during our deliberations last week. There has been a great deal of talk about the Bill and the code of practice, but there has been very little said about regulations under the Bill. In particular, very little has been said about the functions of IMCAs in representing and supporting people under the schedule which are a bit different from the role of the IMCA in other circumstances under the rest of the Mental Capacity Act. Unlike DoLS, the Bill does not make detailed provisions for this or any regulations.
Can the Minister confirm whether amendments will be forthcoming in this area in relation to the functions of IMCAs? Specifically, will the Government look at amendments in relation to Section 35 of the Mental Capacity Act to place a clear duty on the responsible authority to make arrangements to enable IMCAs to be available and to represent and support cared-for persons under paragraph 36 of Schedule 1 to this Bill and in addition to support the appropriate person to fulfil their functions under paragraph 37? Can the Minister also confirm that the existing regulation power under Section 36 of the Mental Capacity Act will be extended to reflect the IMCAs’ function under the schedule?
A particular concern that has been raised with us by stakeholders is that there is no current reference in paragraph 36 to maintaining contact with the cared-for person and supporting their rights under the schedule. Given that the intention is that under the Bill authorisations will be made for much longer periods than was intended under the original Bill—longer than 12 months—it is rather important that someone who is acting in the role of an IMCA continues to have an ongoing involvement with that person. I understand why on this occasion it may not be entirely appropriate to put that in the Bill, but it is an issue of such significance that it might well come under the aegis of regulations.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Baronesses for speaking to the amendments in this group. Before I deal with their questions, I say to the House that I take note of the significant margin in the vote on the previous group of amendments. That is something that the Government will reflect on.
I am grateful for the recognition by the noble Baronesses of the progress that we made on the last day of Report in defining the care home manager much better. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to that process; we have made progress.
I turn to the specific questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. She asked about determining that arrangements are necessary and proportionate and inspecting proposals, conditions and indeed the care plan. The preauthorisation reviewer—as we are about to discuss, we are tightening up who can carry out that role—will thoroughly scrutinise arrangements and need to satisfy themselves that they are necessary and proportionate. It is also worth saying that in making the determination they have the power, if they so wish, to meet the person to determine that, which clearly is important. There is another critical matter, although we will come to this when we talk about conditions so I do not want to pre-empt that discussion too much: in making an authorisation, the responsible body can also then set a timetable of regular reviews to take place so that there is a process of ongoing review to ensure that the “necessary and proportionate assessment” test is always being passed.
We also said—this deals slightly with one of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was making—that if the responsible body is not satisfied that the care home manager is capable of fulfilling this function, they can take on the role of organising assessments themselves. That is, to use the phrase that we coined last time, a backstop that provides some reassurance that any variable quality in provision should not affect the process by which assessments are made and organised and the preauthorisation reviews carried out.
It is absolutely the case that responsible bodies will be able to demand to see care plans and care and support plans as part of their deliberations. That is something that they can ask for, and we would expect that they will be provided because the whole point of the process that we are trying to move to is that decisions on and circumstances around deprivations of liberty are actually integrated into care planning and therefore ought not to be divisible in that sense. I hope that that provides reassurance, but if I can provide more by follow-up, I shall be happy to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked some specific questions, which I shall need to consider, on the regulation-making power. I do not want to get that answer wrong without considering it, but we can meet in the coming days to ensure that she is reassured on that. A group of government amendments about IMCAs that we will discuss later provides greater reassurance on their role, in that, if they are agreed to, there will be a presumption in favour of an IMCA, removing the gatekeeper role that we have discussed. Also, the preauthorisation review will be carried out only by a responsible body, which must apply that presumption of access to an IMCA, so there will be much greater rights to advocacy on an ongoing basis.
The noble Baroness makes an excellent point about maintaining contact. As we move to a system of regular reviews, it is important to make sure that someone is alongside the cared-for person who can flag up any problems—for example, that a less restrictive care option is available, or that there is an objection. As we discussed, passive objections can materialise many weeks or months later. That ongoing role is clearly very important, whether it is for the IMCA or the appropriate person, the family member, or whoever. I give her the commitment that we will determine that in the code of practice.
I hope that I have answered the questions from both noble Baronesses and that on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel comfortable withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am most grateful to the Minister for that clear reassurance. I reiterate our gratitude that the Government decided to change the role of the care home manager, making most of the amendments in this group redundant. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the vital preauthorisation review process in the liberty protection safeguards system, which we have discussed on many occasions. Our intention, which is now clarified by the amendments, is that every application will undergo a preauthorisation review arranged by the responsible body and conducted by someone who is not involved in the day-to-day care or treatment of the person. That must happen before any authorisation can be given.
As we know, this review is essential, not only because every application will undergo one, but because it provides an early opportunity to address situations where someone may be receiving poor care or care in an inappropriate setting, or who are subject to poor care planning. This preauthorisation review, arranged by the responsible body, provides separation between those who will authorise the arrangements and those who carry them out.
Amendments 34 and 40 clarify that the preauthorisation review must be arranged by the responsible body. This was always the Government’s intention, but we are now being explicit about it. These amendments serve to reinforce the role of the responsible body under the liberty protection safeguards system, ensuring that all proposed arrangements undergo independent scrutiny.
We also expect the individual completing the preauthorisation review to consider issues which should act as red flags, such as if there has been inadequate consultation or a provider is seeking authorisation for particularly restrictive arrangements. This provides further protection for cared-for people in cases where the application falls short or has not been as thorough as it ought to have been. We will also expect the person completing the preauthorisation review to meet the person where necessary.
We are determined to work with the sector and set out the detail of how this is applied in a code of practice. This will set out when we expect preauthorisation reviewers to take further action and ensure that the code is consistently applied by different local authorities—an issue that has been raised before. Building on amendments tabled last week, this significantly strengthens the role of local authority oversight and intervention, and ensures the good quality of the new scheme.
Noble Lords will note that the amendment states the responsible body must “arrange” rather than “conduct” the preauthorisation review. The reason for this is to ensure that the person undertaking the review is not doing so as a representative of the responsible body. They must make their own professional decision. This is particularly important in cases where the responsible body also provides the care: for example, where the NHS is the responsible body.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I think the Minister deserves our congratulations on having met all the conditions that we around the House said we believed were important. I am sure that the Government always intended to have some of these matters as part of the legislation, but making them explicit in the context of the Bill is helpful. Not least, it will be helpful to care home managers themselves, who will welcome the protections from unjust accusations of undue influence in future. On behalf of these Benches—and, I should imagine, others—we welcome that.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and welcome these amendments. As the Minister said, they are very important and deal with the issues of conflicts of interest and the preauthorisation review. I congratulate the Minister on navigating us to this point, and certainly we will be supporting the amendments.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for their support. Of course, navigation of any ship requires a good crew, and I feel that we have one. I am very grateful for that support.
“12A The responsible body may not authorise arrangements if an Approved Mental Capacity Professional has concluded that the arrangements should not be authorised.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, Amendment 35 is a failsafe mechanism that will save a great deal of court time in the future and make it clear where the process has halted if things go awry. The failsafe is that an approved mental capacity professional—AMCP—can veto authorisation if the AMCP has grounds to object. However, it is important that the AMCP cannot authorise arrangements. In other words, the default position is to preserve liberty and not to impose restrictions on a person without a very sound reason. It is important that we are explicit about the extent of the AMCP’s powers, whether on the face of the Bill or in subsequent regulation, as we will need to be more prescriptive about these powers in the statutory code of practice than we have been to date, for the sound reason of flexibility and the independence of the AMCP.
The reason I tabled the amendment and feel it should be in the Bill is that there is a risk that local authorities facing financial stringencies might be inclined to authorise arrangements that are less costly, thereby revealing an inherent conflict of interest where a local authority is funding a person’s care. We have had many debates about conflicts of interest in relation to care homes but we must remember that in a whole-health and social care system which is under financial pressure, all kinds of little conflicts and pressures can creep in.
The other amendments in this group specify the different criteria whereby an approved mental capacity professional must conduct the review. I am not going to go through each line of these amendments—they are quite self-explanatory—but they show the importance of that degree of independence before taking the major step of imposing restrictions on somebody’s liberty and conditions under the new liberty protection safeguards process. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 77 in my name, which was drawn up because of the experience of many relatives. I make particular reference to the case of Stephen Neary, where relatives had to deal with local authorities which were telling them wrongfully what their position was in law. A great deal of responsibility was put on to the relatives to oversee the right interpretation of the law. This amendment seeks to ensure that, where they are acting in the best interests of someone who is cared for, relatives would be able to meet an AMCP and trigger their involvement. In our earlier discussions, there was an underlying sense on the Government Benches that the involvement of professionals can often be an unwelcome intrusion into families. In fact, many of them do not find that at all. Many find that the first occasion when they come into contact with a professional is the point at which all sorts of information and understanding becomes available to them in support of their loved ones.
Although I am not seeking to press this amendment today, I hope that the Minister might think about it and, if he is disposed to do so, make some supportive statements.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 46, which is in my name and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. It provides that the care home manager, or any person interested in the cared-for person’s welfare, is responsible for being satisfied that an AMCP should carry out a pre-authorisation review. The Committee has already discussed this and the important safeguards which we will be seeking come under Amendment 76A. Some of the important matters raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Barker, have been addressed by the Minister in the Government’s amendments. I look forward to his reply.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for tabling these important amendments. It is critical to get right the role of approved mental capacity professionals and when they should review cases under the liberty protection safeguards system. AMCPs will be a vital part of the system. They will be qualified, knowledgeable and experienced professionals. It is intended that they will act independently, both of the care provider and the responsible body, and that they will make a determination on proposed arrangements after meeting the person and reviewing relevant information.
Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, explicitly prevents the responsible body overriding a determination of the AMCP. The responsible body is responsible for approving the authorisation, but an AMCP is required to complete the pre-authorisation review if it is reasonable to believe that the person objects to the arrangements. The AMCP can also conduct the pre-authorisation review in other cases. Where an AMCP conducts the pre-authorisation review they will determine whether the authorisation conditions are met.
The critical issue here is the consequences of the AMCP determining that the authorisation conditions have not been met. We are absolutely clear that the responsible body should follow the AMCP’s determination, and indeed any responsible body that did not do so would be taking on a significant legal risk. The responsible body might believe that it has a good reason to disagree with the AMCP’s assessment, but in that case the proper course of action would be to discuss this with the AMCP. If the responsible body then tried to override the AMCP’s decision, we would expect the AMCP to raise concerns—first, with the responsible body itself. If the local authority is the responsible body, the concern can be escalated to the Local Government Ombudsman, and if a CCG is the responsible body, it can be escalated to the regional director of commissioning in NHS England. Concerns regarding NHS organisations and independent hospitals can also be raised directly with the CQC in England or Health Inspectorate Wales. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords are reassured that mechanisms are in place to stop any unjustified behaviour on behalf of responsible bodies.
Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker, Lady Finlay and Lady Jolly, makes explicit that a pre-authorisation review must also be conducted by an approved mental capacity professional if relatives or those with a genuine relationship to the person object to the arrangements, if there is restriction on contact, if the care home manager or responsible body considers the case to be exceptional, or if the arrangements are for mental disorder or the arrangements include covert medication.
The Government agree that families and carers play an important role in liberty protection safeguards. As the people who know the cared-for person best, they will often know what the person’s wishes and feelings are and whether they do, or would, object to what is being proposed. The Bill already states that a pre-authorisation review must be completed by an AMCP if there is a reasonable belief that a person objects to residing in or receiving care and treatment at a particular place. We are clear that an objection raised by someone with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare can also give rise to a reasonable belief that the person objects, and this will be confirmed and clarified in the code.
We all agree that deprivation of liberty is a serious matter, especially when accompanied by measures such as high levels of restriction, covert medication and restrictions on contact. Such measures should be put in place only following a best-interests meeting and in some cases will require a court application. This is confirmed in the current MCA code of practice and will continue to be a key aspect of the new code.
I agree that in some circumstances such cases should be considered by an approved mental capacity professional. The Bill expressly allows for a pre-authorisation review to be completed by an AMCP in other cases, as is clear from paragraph 19(1). However, although the Bill is clear about how the lodging of an objection will lead to a review by an AMCP, I have heard clearly from noble Lords and stakeholders that there is a concern about referring appropriate cases to an AMCP. I hope that noble Lords will be glad to hear that I have been persuaded that we need to clarify on the face of the Bill that other cases can be referred to an AMCP.
In the previous day on Report, I stated that we would revisit, in the Commons, the issue of referral to AMCPs, specifically regarding those in independent hospitals. I can now confirm we will be looking at this issue more widely, including the specific concerns raised in the debate and in the amendment, as part of our considerations for government amendments in the other place. I look forward to working with all noble Lords to make sure that we get this right.
I turn briefly to Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Barker. The amendment would mean that in care home cases the statement to the responsible body must indicate whether any person interested in the person’s welfare is satisfied that the person does or does not object. I understand that the intention here is to create a mechanism for those with an interest to be able to raise objections. I have already said that the Bill specifies that the statement must reflect any consultation that has been completed with those with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare, and our later amendments will also make it explicit that that includes the person themselves under the “duty to consult” government amendments. The IMCA and the appropriate person will also have a role in reflecting these concerns.
To conclude this group of amendments, Amendment 104 states that a review is triggered if a person with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare has raised concerns. As I said, that will be the case. Amendment 109 would change the Bill to reflect the effects of Amendments 34 and 104.
I hope that in answering points raised on these important issues, I have been able to give two kinds of reassurance. The first is that the process of triggering a review will be clearly set out. The Bill as it stands, as well as amendments that we are making, will mean that anybody with an interest in a person’s welfare will be able to trigger a review and that will lead to a consideration by an AMCP. Secondly, in the rare cases where there is a dispute between an AMCP and a responsible body, there will be avenues to escalate such a disagreement to mediation and resolution.
Furthermore, we are determined to get the role of the AMCP right. We think it is necessary to go beyond specifying that those in independent hospitals can see an AMCP and to think of other cases as well, and we are intending to bring forward amendments at the Commons stages of the Bill. I hope that that provides the reassurance that the noble Baronesses are looking for and that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I think I can speak on behalf of all noble Baronesses who had their names on these amendments. We are most grateful to the Government for listening and find all that the Minister said in his speech in response to this group of amendments reassuring and positive. We look forward to working with the Government as these new criteria evolve. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My Lords, the amendments in this group provide clarification regarding the form of the statements provided by the care home manager to the responsible body. I thank noble Lords and others outside the House who highlighted some issues that these amendments attempt to address.
Amendments 41 and 96 outline that the statements provided by the care home manager to the responsible body under paragraphs 14 and 28 must be in writing. This issue was rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and others at Second Reading and in Committee. It has always been the Government’s intention that the statement be a written one, and I gave assurances to noble Lords during Committee that the Bill would be updated to be explicit on this.
Passing these amendments, although they are simple and straightforward, is important, because it will mean that care homes are not able to provide statements over the telephone, as sometimes happens now. This is a valid concern about the future system. The amendments will help to ensure the quality of assessments and pre-authorisation reviews, and that there will always be a written record of the basis for decisions. It is vital that statements be in writing in order for a thorough pre-authorisation review to be completed and for proper evidence of assessments and consultation to be provided.
Under the current DoLS system, care homes are required to complete a “form 1” when making an application. We envisage that under the liberty protection safeguards there will be a similar form, updated and tailored to the new system. I hope this amendment makes it clear to all noble Lords that the Government do not want to see any weakening of safeguards as a result of our reforms.
Amendments 47 and 59 clarify that the necessary and proportionate test is based on an assessment, and that the care home manager’s statement under paragraph 14 must be accompanied by a record of that assessment and a record of the medical and capacity assessments. This was always the Government’s intention. Its omission was a simple drafting error, for which I apologise and which we are now rectifying.
I hope noble Lords will be able to support these minor but vital amendments, which will clarify how the system works in practice. I beg to move.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, at Second Reading I said that there was much to be concerned about in this Bill and that I really hoped the Government would be in listening mode. For the most part, the Government have listened and have made improvements, thanks to the willingness of the Minister and Bill team to listen and to the hard work and commitment of noble Lords on all sides of the House, who have pursued improvements with all the energy they could command.
Government Amendments 41 and 96, requiring a care home manager to provide a written statement to the responsible body to authorise and renew arrangements, seem pretty obvious. Most of us would think that it is common sense to provide a statement in writing, but my late mother would often lament that I would find that, in life, sense is not that common. We certainly welcome these amendments.
The same applies to Amendments 47 and 59, which will ensure that the determination that arrangements are necessary and proportionate is to be made in an assessment, and that a record of this assessment must accompany the statement from the care home manager to the responsible body before an order to authorise arrangements is made. This is also most welcome. On this side, we certainly welcome these amendments.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I also welcome these amendments and want to make a brief observation. Since the summer, like many other noble Lords, I have spent a great deal of time talking to practitioners and stakeholders. If one were to try to thoroughly amend and improve the DoLS and LPS systems, you would start not with the role of the care home manager but with the paperwork and the bureaucracy. Before the code of practice is written, the Government would do well to spend some considerable time talking to local authorities and practitioners about paperwork and communication, because that is perhaps the biggest cause of the backlog of people who have yet to have a proper assessment.
I hope that the Minister will take on board what noble Lords have said on this matter. It is not a commitment to the current way of doing things; rather, although noble Lords are committed to ensuring that people are sufficiently informed, we are not averse to changing and modernising the systems to make them work more efficiently.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for their support for these amendments.
I want to reflect on the last point made, which is very important. The reference is to a written statement, which tends to bring to mind a piece of paper, but of course what we are really talking about are digital records. A great deal of thought has to be put into whether a paper system—or digital records—passing back and forth is the best way to go about this, or whether we can make a technological intervention. That is particularly true if we want these authorisations to be much more dynamic, so that their consistency and application can be assessed over time. There might be technological interventions we can make to make that process easier. I take that advice on board. We will absolutely talk to local authorities, cared-for people, their representatives, charities and others in making sure that we do it right. Noble Lords will be aware that the Secretary of State is a true technophile, and I imagine he would relish the opportunity to inject a bit of innovation into this area to make everyone’s life easier. I will take that point forward.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
“(1A) An assessment must be carried out by a person who appears to the relevant person to have appropriate experience and knowledge.(1B) But if the arrangements are care home arrangements and authorisation is being determined under paragraph 13, an assessment may not be carried out by a person who has a prescribed connection with a care home.(1C) Regulations made by the appropriate authority under sub-paragraph (1B)—(a) may make provision about a connection of any kind (financial or otherwise), and(b) may make different provision for assessments under paragraph 15(1)(a) and paragraph 15(1)(b).(1D) The “appropriate authority” means—(a) where the assessment is in relation to an authorisation by an English responsible body, the Secretary of State, and(b) where the assessment is in relation to an authorisation by a Welsh responsible body, the Welsh Ministers.”
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Ullswater) (Con)
I remind the House that having agreed Amendment 54, I cannot call Amendment 55 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
“( ) In this paragraph “relevant person” means—(a) the care home manager, if the arrangements are care home arrangements and authorisation is being determined under paragraph 13, or(b) the responsible body, in any other case.”
Baroness Barker
Baroness Barker
Baroness Barker
My Lords, Amendments 61 and 67 return to two issues that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised at earlier stages in our debates.
Amendment 61 pertains to what happens when the circumstances or condition of a person deprived of their liberty change. As we have said on previous occasions, that may be someone with dementia whose condition deteriorates or, as in the cases cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, it could be someone with a brain injury whose condition improves and who regains some of their capacity. It is the intention under the Bill that deprivations of liberty will last considerably longer than under current circumstances.
I seek an assurance that there is an ongoing duty on care home managers and those responsible for arranging and carrying out assessments to revisit people whose conditions are likely to change to ensure that their detention is still the least restrictive option.
In Amendment 67, I use the word “conditions” in a completely different sense. As has been said, under DoLS people carrying out assessments and authorisations have the right to say that it would be in order to detain someone and deprive them of their liberty provided that certain conditions are met. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has given us memorable examples of what those conditions might be. However, in truth, the most common condition concerns medication and reviews of medication.
The Government have consistently said that the Bill does not alter that—and that, as ever, the matter will be dealt with in the code of practice—but I am simply asking for a statement from the Minister setting out the legal force by which it will be possible in future for those who are responsible for depriving people of their liberty to do so on the basis of conditions which must be met. The importance of those conditions— particularly when we talk about DoLS in the community —is that they can make something a least restrictive option and therefore admissible.
It is for that reason that I have returned to these two amendments today, and I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I have added my name to Amendment 61 because it is important that we recognise that no one has a crystal ball—we cannot predict what is going to happen. Even people we think might be seriously impaired, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, can sometimes improve and it can be quite unexpected.
It is inconceivable that the course of a person’s illness will match the timetable of annual reviews—that is not the way bodies behave when they have an impairment; if someone does not improve within an expected time frame, they must be reassessed. Otherwise, there is a real possibility that they will languish with inappropriate restrictions on their liberty when such restrictions are no longer necessary or proportionate. In fact, in the case of medication reviews, they may have become inappropriate because they may be on medication that is unnecessarily a sedative.
Of course, those who deteriorate will also need phased authorisations and reviews. Without the Government laying out explicitly this degree of uncertainty in the timeframe and the fact that wherever there is expected to be uncertainty, it should be specified, I fear that there will be pressure to define the amendment’s principle by going to court. We will then end up with a court precedent that is not necessarily applicable to a lot of people, but which they will get caught up in anyway. We will end up with a risk-averse response. I hope the Government will be able to accept, if not the actual wording of the amendment, the principle that the timeliness and the timeframe need to be specified wherever possible to avoid that confusion.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 67 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Jolly, because it would allow the responsible body to specify the set of conditions on the deprivation of liberty to determine that the arrangements are necessary and proportionate and that those conditions are complied with.
Throughout the Bill’s stages, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Finlay, have been consistent on the importance of conditions. Of course, these things make the deprivation of liberty from the patient or cared-for person either tolerable—that is, understandable—or really horrible. I have been very impressed by some of the examples explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It is important that these conditions are not only set, but met, monitored and changed when circumstances change. We seek assurance that the legislation, regulations and conditions will make that happen.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I reinforce what has been said about the importance of conditions and the difference that they can make to both quality of life and the tolerability of the regime to which the looked-after person is subject. I read about how some of the conditions might be things such as helping the looked-after person to sit in the care home’s garden every day or be taken out once a week, as well as how vital these conditions are to ensuring that the decisions taken are the least restrictive. We can all relate to these important things. It is important that there is provision for such conditions to be set out.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Baronesses for introducing their amendments and giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I will set out why the Government have taken a different approach and attempt to explain it.
It is not that we do not think conditions are important. The use of conditions should be baked into the care plan and the arrangements put forward for authorisation, rather than being added only at the point of authorisation. This is not to say that the conditions—let us call them the elements of the arrangements—pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and other noble Baronesses are not critical. Obviously, they are critical to making sure that the elements are the least restrictive. This is about when they are put in place in the care planning and authorisation process. I shall explain our approach, which I hope will satisfy noble Lords, but we can see whether further discussions are required.
I will deal with the amendments in order. Amendment 61 states that it should be determined by the responsible body,
“that the arrangements will continue to be necessary and proportionate for the period of time for which the arrangements are sought”.
We absolutely agree that this should form part of our model and I confirm that this will be considered by the responsible body.
Furthermore, under the Bill, the responsible body is required to specify a programme of regular reviews at the point of authorisation. In a sense, it gets to specify at the point of authorisation how frequently reviews should take place, to seek whether changes in arrangements or other changes have taken place. This means that the care home manager—or the responsible body, if it is carrying it out directly—will be continually required to consider whether arrangements are necessary and proportionate. That is baked into the system we are introducing.
Amendment 67 specifies that conditions can be put on authorisations and, of course, conditions exist under the current DoLS system. However, with the backlog, by the time they come into force, it is often too late, because the person has been subject to the arrangements for some time before the conditions can be applied. In developing the liberty protection safeguards system, we have taken a different approach; for that reason, conditions have not been included in the Bill. Again, it is worth pointing out that this is consistent with the approach adopted by the Law Commission, which concluded that conditions, as currently provided for under the DoLS system, were not necessary under its new scheme. The Law Commission’s final report states on page 112 that, instead of DoLS conditions, the scheme,
“focuses on particular arrangements and what will be authorised are very specific arrangements. Further, it is only arrangements which result in the minimum amount of deprivation of liberty possible that will be authorised, otherwise the necessary and proportionate condition will not be met. So the arrangements will need to be described in a way which builds in any conditions”.
In other words, arrangements under the Bill can be detailed in such a way as to have the same effect as conditions. For example, the authorised arrangements could include enabling the person to be taken out on trips with one-to-one support, or their care plan could specify that additional staff should be provided to enable the person to be taken out more frequently.
It is our view that doing this provides greater protections for the person. This approach means that conditions—or, if noble Lords prefer, specific arrangements—are considered as part of care planning, before an authorisation is sought, rather than being bolted on afterwards. Rather than being something that happens after the person is deprived of liberty, they would be an integral part of care planning, with the proposed arrangements submitted to the responsible body for review.
Notwithstanding this approach, I know the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is keen to have a statement from me about current practice, under which a DoLS lead, or best-interests assessor, can insist that deprivation of liberty is authorised only if stated conditions are made. We are not proposing to change the ability of the responsible body, whether the responsible body itself or an AMCP, to make conditions as part of an authorisation. It will still be possible for that to happen. We are trying to ensure that the decision on appropriate conditions is made earlier in the care-planning process, so that they are incorporated into the arrangements that are then put to the responsible body for review, rather than being added when the review takes place. Failure to comply with these conditions, specifically because they have been within the authorisation, would mean that the authorisation would cease to have effect, and must be reviewed. There we come to the ongoing important role that appropriate persons, IMCAs and others will have, in making sure the person is supported, so that if there are any changes in their condition, or their circumstances, a review is triggered.
I recognise this is a fiendishly complicated thing to describe, and I have probably done a fairly inadequate job of it. However, I strongly believe that, in making this change, we are not trying to remove conditions, but move the concept of applying conditions to earlier in the care-planning process. That is the right thing to do. The responsible body will continue to be able to add subsequent conditions if it feels it is necessary for an authorisation. I genuinely believe that is a better system. Clearly, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. On how this will happen in practice, there will need to be clear guidance and training to make sure that people are trained to do this, both at the care home, and in other NHS bodies, and to make sure that reviewers are capable of assessing such arrangements and making their own subsequent conditions, if they feel it is necessary. That guidance and training is something we aim to provide, of course.
I hope I have explained why we take the point the noble Baronesses made in tabling these amendments very seriously, and shown that the system allows for it. It puts this consideration earlier in the planning process, we hope with better effect. We have been guided by the Law Commission’s approach in this way. I hope this has been persuasive, but if further discussion and elaboration is needed, I would be more than happy to give it following today’s debate.
Baroness Barker
I thank the Minister very much for his response. We are arguing not about two opposites but about a gap that I am trying to close, the answer to which lies in why conditions happen. They happen not necessarily because of any failure of care planning, which I think the Minister is talking about, or to improve care planning, but because in real life people end up being cared for in a particular place. Things to which they object or limitations in their care become apparent at the point at which someone goes to do the authorisation.
I am all in favour of improving personalised care planning and so on, but the one thing that DoLS and best-interests assessors have been absolutely united in saying is that this makes a practical difference when they go to see people. I am very happy that the Minister said that it would still be the responsibility of a responsible body to make sure that conditions are being met, and that, if they were not or if it became apparent that further conditions needed to be put in place, they would still be able to do so. With that reassurance, I am content that we have probably closed the gap that I was trying to close. On that basis, I am willing not to press the amendments.
Baroness Barker
Lord O’Shaughnessy
“( ) When making a determination under this paragraph regard must be had (amongst other matters) to the cared-for person’s wishes and feelings in relation to the arrangements.”
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My Lords, before introducing these amendments, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for accepting my explanation on the previous group. I am conscious that we need to explain this in more detail, but I am grateful to all noble Lords and to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for not pushing this point. This is something that we can clarify to get to a better system.
The amendments in this group are clearly central to the Bill, because they are all about putting the cared-for person at the centre of the new liberty protection safeguards. Noble Lords have been at pains to highlight a concern that the cared-for person is not listed explicitly as a person to consult. That has clearly always been our intention, but it is nevertheless quite right that that should be explicit in the Bill.
Amendment 71 clarifies that the cared-for person must be consulted as part of the consultation under new paragraph 17. Amendment 63 sets out that the person’s wishes and feelings must be considered as part of the determination that the arrangements are necessary and proportionate. Amendments 110 and 111 update other parts of the Bill to reflect the new explicit consultation requirement and to make some other minor drafting changes.
The consultation required by the Bill is important in establishing the cared-for person’s wishes and feelings, and identifying objections to the arrangements. It is also an important way of involving the person and their families in the process, and making sure that the liberty protection safeguards authorisation is something that happens not just to them, but with them. It has always been our position that the person should be consulted, but it is quite right that we set this out explicitly. Through these amendments we have also been explicit that the person’s wishes and feelings must be considered as part of the necessary and proportionate determination.
Briefly, Amendment 68, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Jolly, would also ensure that this point is considered. I hope they will feel that the Government’s amendments have dealt with their issues and that they will feel happy not to press their amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am looking to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, because I am sure she will agree with me. I am grateful and happily give way to the government amendment, which does what we wanted to do. We will not do anything with our amendment. I thank the Minister for his clarifications.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Baroness for her agreement. I beg to move.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
“(3) If the arrangements are care home arrangements and authorisation is being determined under paragraph 13, an assessment may not be carried out by a person who has a prescribed connection with a care home.(4) Regulations made by the appropriate authority under sub-paragraph (3) may make provision about a connection of any kind (financial or otherwise).(5) The “appropriate authority” means—(a) where the assessment is in relation to an authorisation by an English responsible body, the Secretary of State, and(b) where the assessment is in relation to an authorisation by a Welsh responsible body, the Welsh Ministers.”
Lord O’Shaughnessy
Lord O’Shaughnessy
“(za) the cared-for person,”
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I remind the House that if Amendment 73 is agreed I cannot call Amendment 74 because of pre-emption.
Amendment 73
Lord O’Shaughnessy
(a) a person who is involved—(i) in the day-to-day care of the cared-for person, or(ii) in providing any treatment to the cared-for person, or(b) a person who has a prescribed connection with a care home.”
(c) there is dispute between the responsible body and the registered health or social care professional who has carried out the review under paragraph 20.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I declare an interest. Some years ago I was involved in helping the police prosecute people who were responsible for care but who were delivering terrible abuse in what was then termed an EMI home. A care assistant, encouraged and supported by her friend who worked on the domestic side, thought, “This wouldn’t be good enough for one of my relatives”. As we explored the cases, families in their statements commented on all they had noticed but said they did not feel able to raise concerns, let alone complain. They feared that their relative in the home would be victimised if they said anything or raised any questions. It was case records that revealed repetitive patterns of entry that gave the clues to support the statements that relatives gave to the police and provided evidence against those abusing these people, which led to a successful prosecution. The Minister has already said that the triggers for an AMCP review will be expanded. We look forward to working with him and officials on this. That should cover Amendment 76 when there is a dispute. Amendment 74 has, of course, fallen through pre-emption.
I shall focus on Amendment 76A, because it supports the whistleblower and ensures an independent review. Without that, we will fail those who need protection and leave whistleblowers with no option other than to stay silent and say nothing—or, if they can pluck up the courage, go to the CQC or the police, with all the disruption, expense and risk of losing their job that that involves. It would also mean a delay in alerting when things are not as they should be. The other amendments in this group concern other ways of triggering a professional expert review. I know that we have legislation designed to protect whistleblowers, but for domestics—cleaning and kitchen staff—and care assistants, who are often those who spend most face-to-face time with people, who need the job and may not be able to find alternative employment where they live, it takes enormous courage to say that things are not right. Sadly, it is more courage than many people can pluck up.
A Guardian report, published on Friday, cites examples of “terrible indignity and neglect” in for-profit care homes across the country. Whistleblowers have risked their jobs and livelihoods to report cases of,
“inappropriate and disproportionate use of physical restraint”,
on residents with autism, and carers failing to manage medicine safely. In this article, Eileen Chubb, founder of Compassion in Care—a charity that campaigns on behalf of whistleblowers for better levels of care—was quoted as saying:
“We have seen first hand the appalling consequences of poor care … company after company making millions whilst on the frontline vulnerable people are left without the basics to sustain life”.
Carers who break the silence surrounding abuse, such as the whistleblowers at the home cited, deserve protection.
Even if a care home is a good home and receives a good rating from a CQC inspection, relatives may visit only intermittently and may not be aware that the care that they think is being given to their relative just is not happening for them. They will not be aware of the minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour aspect of a person’s care. It is the staff there for hours on end who can benchmark that care. They may realise that the person has become increasingly withdrawn and increasingly less communicative, and perhaps cries at night and seems very unhappy. The staff must confidently be able to ask for a review without prejudice.
This amendment will play an important role in giving protection both for residents and for those who call for a review. It calls for a review because it is far less threatening for somebody who has a concern to be able to ask for an independent review from an AMCP who can come in and assess what is going on—they do not feel that they need the body of evidence to make an accusation of malpractice. That is why this should be in the Bill, even if all the other ways of triggering a review are consigned to the code of practice. I feel quite strongly that when staff feel that something is not right and want to say so but their seniors are not recognising it, they must have the ability to protect the cared-for person, because the cared-for person is so vulnerable. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, right from the beginning of this Bill—at Second Reading and in Committee—concerns have been expressed across the House about how the interests of the cared-for person can be ensured through the process of using the AMCP when that person is at their most vulnerable and may not be articulate at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, articulated exactly what we are saying. Amendment 76A, in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, is an essential fail-safe that we believe needs to be in the Bill.
Like the Minister, we have sought across the House to prioritise the issues that we thought were most important for the cared-for person. I think we have come through rather well in improving this Bill together, and mostly without having to resort to Divisions. I hope that the Minister will accept Amendment 76A, because it is certainly in line with the aspirations that he has expressed to the House about safeguarding the cared-for person. If he is not prepared to do that, certainly on these Benches we hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will seek the opinion and support of the House, because it is certainly there.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, it has been a concern of all noble Lords who have taken part in discussions on the Bill that a person could be deprived of their liberty without seeing an appropriate professional at any time. We have argued back and forth about the extent to which access to an appropriate professional should be universal, automatic or whatever.
With this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and those of us who have attached our names to it are trying to ensure that where the people who are most closely associated with a person have a genuine and deep concern—I imagine it would be a shared concern—but not necessarily a formal role, they can alert a professional to come in and make an assessment. We are trying to close a loophole that we think is still there.
If we can do that, we will be well on the way to doing what the Minister has indicated the Government are trying to do: to make the most effective and efficient use of professional resources amid a level of demand which we know cannot currently be met. We have moved some way from what we would ideally like to see and this amendment represents something of a compromise. I hope we can reach agreement on this last part of the link.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for tabling these amendments and giving us the opportunity to debate this very important issue. I will come to Amendment 76A last, because clearly that is the one about which there has been the most debate and, in a sense, has the most import. First, I will deal briefly with the other amendments in the group.
Amendment 81 would require the person who conducts the pre-authorisation review to be a,
“registered health or social care professional”,
with appropriate skills, knowledge and experience. I think and hope that we dealt with that adequately on our previous day on Report. Those qualifications will be set out in the code of practice. Indeed, we might want to go more broadly than we have done historically on this.
Amendment 76 would require that where there is a dispute between the responsible body and the professional who completed the pre-authorisation review, it would automatically go up to an AMCP. I agree that in some cases that would be the right and prudent thing to do. In other cases, it may be able to be resolved between the two parties. Again, we dealt with that before and it is something I want to consider in our deliberations about the kinds of cases that an AMCP would look at.
The debate on Amendment 76A has been helpful in bringing out the core concern here: the role of whistleblowers. We have talked about the cared-for person, their family members, the appropriate person, IMCAs and others, but this is about the people who are doing the caring or who are employed by the organisation or organisations that are doing the caring. It is absolutely right—indeed, the Bill requires—that an AMCP must conduct a pre-authorisation review if there is a reasonable belief. Clearly, a note of concern being raised by a staff member would qualify because they would have understanding and knowledge of the care of that person.
Last week we had a Statement on the Gosport inquiry, in which the health system not listening to whistleblowers was critical in these issues not being dealt with for years and people losing their lives as a consequence. As the Government said in response to that, we are working with BEIS—the department with responsibility for such legislation—to see if there is anything we can do to strengthen the rules around whistleblowers. I take very seriously the concerns that have been raised by noble Lords. As I said, with Gosport and indeed many other instances, whether they involve one person or, sadly, dozens of people, this kind of issue crops up again and again. I understand its importance.
The concern I have at this point actually relates to the drafting. Because it would provide an automatic trigger, rather than one that gave some consideration to the seriousness of the case, there is a risk that it could be abused or that frivolous cases could be raised and put to an AMCP when it was not really justified. That is, in a sense, an issue with the drafting
I want to deal with this if we can. My suggestion, if noble Lords are willing, is to meet between now and Third Reading to discuss this topic—as well as any others we want to discuss, of course—to work out the right approach. This would enable us to get to the bottom of it, work out what is right and think about that in the context of other whistleblowing issues, of which we are all aware. It would ensure that if we all agree on the need to legislate, we can agree on what that ought to look like. Again, I emphasise the importance with which I regard this issue. I hope and believe that we can do something in the coming days to deal with it in a way on which we all agree, while having the effect that we want. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness is prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am most grateful to the Minister for realising the seriousness of this issue and that our current whistleblowing policies are inadequate. I do not share his concern about vexatious reporting because if you got such reporting from a staff member, it would be pretty obvious pretty quickly. The review would have happened and if one person is better protected, it is far safer than many people being inadequately protected. I accept that my drafting—I am grateful to the Public Bill Office—may not be perfect and because the Minister will come back to this at Third Reading, we will have a meeting and then be able to bring back an amendment.
Baroness Thornton
May I seek clarification from the Minister? He said that he would come back to Amendment 76A. Is this about Amendment 76 or Amendment 76A?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for clarifying on the record that we are talking about Amendment 76A. With the caveat that the meeting will include all of us who have been involved in and feel so concerned about this matter, I will withdraw the amendment, knowing that we will bring something back at Third Reading in this House and not leave it to the code of practice or the Commons. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
“( ) Regulations made by the appropriate authority under sub-paragraph (1)(b) may make provision about a connection of any kind (financial or otherwise).( ) The “appropriate authority” means—(a) where the pre-authorisation review is in relation to an authorisation by an English responsible body, the Secretary of State, and(b) where the pre-authorisation review is in relation to an authorisation by a Welsh responsible body, the Welsh Ministers.”
Baroness Thornton
“(za) meet with the cared-for person,”
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, the next three amendments form a suite and, following our discussions with stakeholders, these are issues that we would like to discuss. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and I have shared the tabling of these amendments, which do not directly address the central and overarching question of where so much of the care home manager’s responsibility will lie. In a way, we have addressed that issue and amended the Bill accordingly. The amendments concentrate on strengthening the rights of the cared-for person, which have to be at the heart of any system for giving and reviewing authorisations, by ensuring that their voice is heard within consultations at every stage of the process. Amendment 82, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, would start this process by ensuring that there is a meeting “with the cared-for person”. I beg to move.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
Before I address this amendment, I again thank noble Lords for their willingness to talk further on Amendment 76A so that we can reach the right conclusion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, quite rightly talked about the role of Amendment 82 being to make sure that the cared-for person has rights and that they are at the centre of the authorisation process. Of course, that is absolutely right. The reason why we have not taken the approach that the reviewer should meet all people in the system is because we want to provide a more proportionate system that nevertheless contains significant safeguards so that if there are any concerns about the nature of a review then not only would the reviewer, whether a responsible body or an IMCA, meet the person but there are opportunities for escalation beyond that.
Let me be absolutely clear that in cases where the person objects to the arrangements, the Bill already requires AMCPs to meet the person, where practicable and appropriate, when they complete the preauthorisation review. This amendment would require a face-to-face visit in all preauthorisation reviews, not only those completed by an AMCP, regardless of whether it is appropriate or practicable to do so.
I of course appreciate there will be circumstances where it is right and proper for the person conducting the preauthorisation review to meet the person, even in cases where the review is not completed by an AMCP. That is not precluded by the Bill. Indeed, it would be our expectation in some cases that that would happen. For example, if the person completing the preauthorisation review is concerned that adequate consultation has not taken place or if there is a question over the validity of any of the assessments provided, we think it right and proper for the person conducting the preauthorisation review to meet the cared-for person. Details about that, including scenarios, will be set out in the code of practice.
However, we also want to make sure that the system is proportionate. One of the problems we have at the moment is that it is not proportionate, and that is why we have a backlog. There are straightforward cases. For example, when someone who consented to living in the care home subsequently loses capacity and there is no reason to suspect that they would object to continuing to live in the care home, a meeting with the cared-for person would be very unlikely to change the outcome. In such cases, the person may have already undergone an assessment process and the person will also have access to representation—we are about to come on to IMCAs. Unless there are concerns about the validity of the assessments, it would not normally be necessary or proportionate to meet the person who, after all, had agreed to live in the care home.
A further potential effect of this amendment would be to require the person completing the preauthorisation review to meet the cared-for person, even if the person refuses. This is a topic we have discussed before. We do not think it goes with the ethos of the Mental Capacity Act, particularly in cases where someone has expressed a desire not to do so. It is important to stress that that is not just our conclusion but is also the conclusion of the Law Commission after its work. We believe that a targeted approach will be much more effective in making sure that those safeguards are in place.
While I understand the noble Baroness’s desire for reassurance that the cared-for person will be met, I do not think it would be appropriate in all cases. We have been clear during the passage of the Bill in the amendments that we have laid, and as we will specify in the code of practice, that there will be many circumstances when it is appropriate to do so but equally there will be circumstances when it is not appropriate. Therefore, we do not think it would be right to have a blanket application of this approach of the preauthorisation reviewer meeting the cared-for person. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will feel reassured and will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barker
During our deliberations the Minister has several times talked about people being forced to meet an IMCA or an AMCP when they do not want to. We have asked him to supply evidence of that. He has not yet done so, even though we are at this stage in our deliberations. Clearly this is a matter that may well return at a further stage in the Commons. I ask him again please to write to noble Lords with that evidence.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that clarification. It is a question that we felt was worth asking, and I suspect that when the Bill goes to the Commons people will pursue it. I do not think the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, put forward, that there are people who do not want this and they should not be forced into it, is really the point; the point was about this not happening because it was obstructed by the people taking care of the person. That is the matter that needs clarification. So, on the basis that that will be clear—
Lord O’Shaughnessy
Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I would like to say that that is an important point. I am not suggesting that there are going to be hundreds of cases where individuals do not want to see someone, but it is clearly a possibility. I think we need a more proportional system in order to deal with the backlog and ensure that people are protected, but it also has to have a set of safeguards, whether that is access to representation, making sure that conflicts of interest do not exist among care home managers and, as we are going to discuss in the coming weeks, under what circumstances an AMCP would automatically be activated, in which case of course the meeting would take place. It is those circumstances that ought to give the reassurance that it is not necessary in all cases, rather than saying that there are hundreds or thousands of these kinds of cases where people are refusing. I think that will be the exception rather than the rule.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker
“(d) there are practicable less restrictive options that would meet the authorisation conditions”
Baroness Barker
This amendment follows on in some way from the previous discussion. It relates to a practical issue. We keep returning to the fact that authorisations are going to be made, potentially for a longer time—they can be renewed for up to three years —yet there is not much in the way of safeguards for those people for whom the initial authorisation and the process of review is no longer the least restrictive option. This again uses the importance of putting something in the Bill rather than sticking it in the back of a code of practice to ensure that in the process of reviewing an authorisation and bringing it to an earlier conclusion there is information about less restrictive options for that person that would meet the authorising conditions.
This is mostly the case for people who are discharged from hospital into a care home and whose care is then very often not reviewed. At that stage their care may be taken into consideration along with the sale of their own property. That is why it is important that we consider this issue as the Bill goes through, so that by enabling there to be longer authorisations for most people we are not putting a subgroup of people in jeopardy by not having this requirement to continue to look at less restrictive options. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I support the amendment. I would like to put an illustrative example before the House, although I know this is Report so I will be very brief. I heard recently about someone who had sustained a head injury, living in a place where he received care, who got very aggressive whenever people suggested that he should attend to his own personal hygiene or tidy up. Any type of reasoning or persuasion completely failed. The solution was not to restrict what he did at all but rather just to walk in, put a vacuum cleaner in the room and go out again. He seemed to then go into an automatic mode of vacuuming, cleaning up, tidying up and then washing, and everything was sorted, including his personal hygiene.
I mention that because it is important for us to realise, when we are thinking of restrictive options, that sometimes you need to be imaginative to find the least restrictive option for people. Letting people out a certain amount can be far more effective than being so risk-averse that you limit what they can do.
Baroness Thornton
Yet again, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, brings us a helpful example. I put my name to the amendment and we support it. It is part of a suite of amendments about keeping the cared-for person as far as possible empowered to make their own decisions, which must be intrinsic to the Bill. The amendment would ensure that the least restrictive method is always used.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendment and the other noble Baronesses who have spoken to it. The example given was very illuminating, and I rather like the idea of that happening automatically if you leave a vacuum cleaner in someone’s room. I might try that with my children and see what happens.
The key point here is that we want the least restrictive arrangements necessary to provide for the person’s ongoing care. That is the animating idea behind the liberty protection safeguards system. We believe that the effect of the amendment is catered for through the “necessary and proportionate” test. Let me explain that. When the Law Commission published its final report on this, it concluded that,
“integral to the question of whether the deprivation of liberty is proportionate (as well as necessary) is consideration of whether there is a less intrusive alternative”.
So consideration of whether an ongoing restriction continues to be necessary and proportionate is already baked in.
As I said, the nature of the authorisations to be given by the responsible body under the new system will instigate a system of regular reviews. To give an example, it might stipulate a review for someone with fluctuating capacity, where there is reason to believe that a review might be required after a period. The system being set up enables regular reviews in a way that provides greater specificity than is the case now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was concerned that, as the length of an authorisation was extended, although that might be all right for some people, it might not for others. That is a fantastically important point, but in the process of authorisation the responsible body will be able to stipulate more frequent reviews. Our hope would be that that would come from the care home manager or other person organising the arrangements in the process of their care planning, because they will have worked out, by looking after that person, that there is reason for regular review, but it could equally be something that the responsible body attaches as a condition to the arrangements.
The effect is that when less restrictive alternatives are practically available, the authorisation ceases to have effect. It is no longer applicable. As I said, that could be determined by continuous review, regular review or be flagged by anyone—a staff member, a family member or others—with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare, which would trigger an updated review of the situation to see what less restrictive care was available.
Although I absolutely agree with the intent behind the amendment, the “necessary and proportionate” test is already in the Bill. It provides precisely the effect that the noble Baronesses seek. Indeed, because of the way we are dealing with specific arrangements in the authorisation process, it is something for which the responsible body can stipulate a system of regular reviews. I hope that, on that basis, they will be reassured that we are conscious of the importance of this issue but believe that it is dealt with in the Bill as amended, and that the noble Baroness will feel comfortable withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness Barker
I thank the noble Lord very much for those statements. He will understand that, given the state in which this Bill arrived in your Lordships’ House, there was a great deal of genuine concern among stakeholders that the people making the decisions—largely, care home managers—might not be in a position to know what would be a less restrictive option for somebody: to be either in their own home, or supported in the community. In this Report stage, it has been useful to go back over that ground and to put more clarification around the frequency and timing of reviews. That will be a tremendous test for this new system, given the way in which it has been set up for there to be a period of two-year renewals. Nevertheless, at this stage, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
“26A_ The responsible body may renew an authorisation—(a) under paragraph 27, if the conditions in that paragraph are met, or(b) under paragraph 28 if—(i) the authorisation relates to care home arrangements,(ii) the responsible body decides that renewal should be determined under that paragraph instead of under paragraph 27, and(iii) the conditions in paragraph 28 are met.”
Lord O’Shaughnessy
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
If Amendment 99 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 100 to 102 on grounds of pre-emption.
Amendment 99
Lord O’Shaughnessy
Baroness Thornton
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, Amendment 103 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. It would ensure that the reviewer must carry out a review of authorisations if a reasonable request is made by a person with an interest in the welfare of the cared-for person. This is part of the suite of amendments that stakeholders have put to us about making the cared-for person the heart of the Bill. Care England, along with many others across the sector, wants to be assured that the cared-for person’s voice is heard within the consultations at every stage of the process. This amendment would ease those concerns of the various stakeholders.
Like amendments in previous groups, this amendment would ensure that the cared-for person’s best interests are kept at the forefront of the Bill and not forgotten, and it would play a key role in protecting the cared-for person’s rights. If someone with a cared-for person’s best interests feels that the authorisations are in need of being reviewed and reconsidered, this must happen and therefore would help to protect the cared-for person. I beg to move.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendment. Obviously, it is worth having an opportunity to restate that we clearly agree with her that it is necessary that anybody with an interest in a cared-for person’s welfare is able to trigger a reasonable request or, indeed, an objection on their behalf that constitutes a reasonable belief. That is something that we have discussed in terms of people who are supportive, such as family members, appropriate persons, IMCAs, and so on. Clearly, we have agreed to talk further about the role of whistleblowers and staff members.
I can reassure the noble Baroness that what she is asking for is already contained in numerous places in the Bill. The amendment deals specifically with paragraph 31(3)(b) of Schedule AA1. It is implicit in the description,
“person with an interest in the arrangements”,
that that includes people who have an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare. That is the purpose of the Bill. As I have made clear, any objection from someone who has an interest in the person’s welfare constitutes a reasonable belief, as set out elsewhere in the Bill. I am grateful for the opportunity to return to this issue and hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness that this is absolutely included in the definition.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Before the Minister sits down, will he confirm that “interests” does not include the interests of the care home manager, where it may be a cheaper option, and that the interests of the cared-for person are definitely at the centre of the clause as written? I want to be absolutely sure that it cannot be misinterpreted in the future to mean “interests” in a much broader sense than the interests of the cared-for person.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
That is a very valid question. We have tried to deal with the conflict issues in other amendments. It is absolutely not the intention that that ought to be misused for the purpose referred to by the noble Baroness. I will need to get specific clarification about the implications of this, but I can reassure her that that is not the intention of it. If it needs to be clarified in a letter to noble Lords and, subsequently, in a code of practice then that is what we will do.
Baroness Thornton
This is probably one of the occasions when one can say that this really needs to be clarified in the code of practice. I thank the Minister for his reassurances and for getting them on the record. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My Lords, I come to the critically important issue of IMCAs—independent mental capacity advocates. These amendments relate to the appointment of such people. Representation and support, whether from an IMCA or an “appropriate person”, is an important safeguard and is vital to ensuring that a cared-for person’s human rights are protected throughout the process when they are deprived of liberty.
Many people will be best supported by an appropriate person. This will tend to be a family member or someone who is close to the person. They will often know them, and their wishes and feelings, and are in the best position to provide that person with support and representation. They must, of course, be willing to undertake such a role. However, we know that others will not be in this position and will benefit from having an IMCA to provide that support and representation. For those people, it is vital that they can access an IMCA without impediment and these amendments address this
Amendments 112 and 113 remove the requirement for care home managers to notify a responsible body whether or not an IMCA should be appointed. Amendments 116 and 118 mean that appointment of IMCAs in care home cases is not contingent on notification from the care home. In Committee, I committed to review whether the Bill could make clearer that the care home manager should not act as a gatekeeper to an IMCA appointment. I have done this and these amendments achieve that goal. The responsibility for appointing an IMCA will therefore clearly lie with the responsible body and must be considered from the point that the arrangements are proposed. The responsible body can take into account any evidence in deciding whether an IMCA should be appointed, including a request from the person themselves, a family member or other interested person.
Amendments 122 and 124 in effect introduce a presumption that an IMCA should be appointed if there is no appropriate person, with a very limited exception when having an IMCA would not be in the person’s best interests. Noble Lords and others have raised concerns that the Bill as currently drafted introduces a test that could act as a block on IMCA appointment. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also expressed concern about this issue. Our intent is to ensure that people are properly protected, and we see the role of the IMCA and the appropriate person as essential to the integrity of the system in advocating for and supporting cared-for people and their rights.
We have been pleased to listen to stakeholders and to noble Lords and have amended the Bill accordingly to make sure that, when no appropriate person is in place, an IMCA is appointed unless that is not in the person’s best interests. Circumstances where it would not be in a person’s best interests to have an IMCA would be very rare, as we have discussed, but that might be the case if, for example, a person’s past and present wishes and feelings clearly indicated that they did not want one. We will use the code of practice to outline when these very unusual exceptions would apply.
Turning to the other amendments in this group, Amendment 117, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Jolly, would have the same effect as government Amendment 116. In the light of that, I hope they will feel that that deals with the issue they were concerned about. All the other amendments in this group update the Bill to reflect our proposed changes to the IMCA role.
I hope that our amendments have addressed the perfectly understandable concerns of noble Lords on this topic. I am very grateful for their input to making sure that we have been able to move forward on this issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, like all other noble Lords, I welcome the Government’s change of heart on this matter and am glad that they have understood the very real concerns about conflict of interest in relation to care home managers. However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise one other potential conflict of interest to which we have not really had time to pay much attention, and that is within the responsible body. The responsible body may well be the local authority which is funding somebody’s care home place. During meetings, stakeholders have been very concerned that the person within the responsible body who makes these decisions should not be within the commissioning part of that body, as there is the potential there for another conflict of interest.
Some further work will have to be done—I suspect either in regulations or in a code of practice—to make sure that we do not enable another conflict of interest to take place which is probably more important than a conflict of interest relating to a care home manager. It is just a case of being sure that all the decisions—although principally these decisions—are taken by a person within the responsible body but not within the financial decision-making parts of it.
Baroness Thornton
I have an amendment in this group which covers the same ground that we have been talking about for the last 20 or so minutes. It is probably not essential to pursue this amendment because the government amendments on this matter seem very comprehensive.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am sorry that I did not mention the noble Baroness’s amendment—there are so many in this group—nevertheless, I am grateful for her acceptance that we have been able to meet the perfectly justified concerns discussed inside and outside the Chamber during the passage of the Bill.
Perhaps I may deal quickly with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who asked about conflicts of interest within a responsible body. We would certainly expect authorisation and the IMCA appointments to be in a separate part of the commissioning body. Government Amendment 73, which deals with who should not carry out reviews, includes, in paragraph (b),
“a person who has a prescribed connection with a care home”.
The process of commissioning a care home place for somebody should perhaps be a category that we ought to consider under that provision, and I shall need to reflect on that. That might be the right route to follow, as clearly we do not want to move the conflict of interest to a different part of the process. I will look into that and we will consider how to deal with it. I think we now have the statute to enable us to do so. I will come back to noble Lords on that point. I thank them for their contribution to the development of these amendments and their support for them. I beg to move.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord O'Shaughnessy
“(a) “medical treatment” has the same meaning as in the Mental Health Act (see section 145(1) and (4)), but”
“PART 8TRANSITORY PROVISION52_ Until the repeal of section 324 of the Education Act 1996 made by paragraph 4(1) and (9) of Schedule 1 to the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 (anaw 2) comes fully into force—(a) paragraph 10(1)(zb) has effect as if there were substituted—“(zb) if the cared-for person has an individual development plan or a statement of special educational needs—(i) the local authority responsible for maintaining that plan or statement, or(ii) in the case of an individual development plan which is not maintained by a local authority, the local authority whose area the cared-for person is in;”,(b) paragraph 10(4A)(b) has effect as if there were substituted—“(b) if the cared-for person has an individual development plan or a statement of special educational needs—(i) the local authority responsible for maintaining that plan or statement, or(ii) in the case of an individual development plan which is not maintained by a local authority, the local authority whose area the cared-for person is in;”, and(c) paragraph 10(7) has effect as if at the end there were inserted—““statement of special educational needs” means a statement within the meaning of section 324 of the Education Act 1996.””
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Requirement before commencement: consultation
Before any provisions of this Act other than those which come into force on its passing can come into force, the Secretary of State must publish a report listing the names of organisations consulted by the Government in preparation of the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill since 13 March 2017.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have three substantive amendments in this group, Amendments 140, 141 and 143. Amendments 145, 146 and 147 are linked to and consequential on the first three.
Amendment 140 states that before the Act comes into force, the Secretary of State should publish a report listing the names of organisations consulted by the Government since March 2017 in preparing the Bill. I am very surprised that the Government have refused to list the organisations they consulted. I understand they refused an FoI request because it would be too expensive, which is difficult to understand. I think the Government and the Department of Health and Social Care are clearly embarrassed about the consultation they undertook. It was clearly one of those selective consultations, and I am afraid it reflects the rushed nature of the Bill.
The Law Commission undertook extensive work and published a draft Bill. Instead of discussing that with stakeholders and having the proper pre-legislative scrutiny for a mental capacity Bill, the Government essentially cherry picked the Law Commission Bill, did a rushed consultation, ended up in trouble and have now had to produce a load of amendments to try to put the Bill as right as possible.
I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for what they have done, but I do not think anyone believes this is a good Bill that will work in practice. I am sure the reality is that another Bill will have to be produced when it is found that this Bill, too, cannot be implemented effectively in the field, for all the reasons we have suggested. A Bill in this kind of area, particularly when it starts in the House of Lords, cries out either for pre-legislative scrutiny or at least—as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has suggested on a number of occasions—a Select Committee process to engage with stakeholders and question officials before it reaches Committee in your Lordships’ House. It is a matter of regret that this did not happen. I am sure this will come up again in the Commons, and I still think we ought to know for the record which organisations were consulted on the Bill.
Amendment 141 relates to outstanding applications under the current legislation, which I raised in Committee. We are told that the reason for the Bill is the huge backlog of applications that have not been dealt with at all. The question is: what will happen to them? In Committee, the Minister said that,
“existing DoLS authorisations can continue until they are due for renewal or review”.—[Official Report, 22/10/18; col. 758.]
I well understand that; it is sensible. When they come up for review or renewal, they will then need to be dealt with under the provisions of this Bill, once it is enacted. But I want to know what will happen to the tens of thousands of applications that have simply not started. Because they have not been started, will they have to be dealt with under the existing legislation, or, if not, how will the sector cope with these thousands of applications under the new system?
All evidence suggests that, when you start a new process and then immediately put on to it all the people who have not been through the old process, it leads to chaos, because the system cannot handle it. I have mentioned my wonderful experience as Minister for the Child Support Agency. Mrs Thatcher invented the CSA, thinking she could reduce benefit payments because, in essence, benefits were being paid in circumstances where people were not paying maintenance to their partner who was looking after the children. She had the great idea that, by bringing in the CSA and making everyone on benefits go through the system, suddenly a lot of money would be produced. Of course, what it produced was absolute chaos. On the vesting day, everyone who was claiming benefits in those circumstances was immediately expected to come on to the system. I want to make sure that we avoid a similar situation here—as well as wanting to share with noble Lords a second time my angst with the CSA.
Amendment 143, my third in this group, relates to the code of practice. We have talked about this code on many happy occasions during our debates. Will the Minister explain how he sees the timing for the code, and confirm that it will have to be laid before Parliament? Finally, I hope the Minister will accept my amendment. He has put so much emphasis on the importance of the code; surely it should be approved by affirmative rather than negative resolution. I know that the Minister has given quite a bit on this Bill recently; I hope he might just give on that. I beg to move.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 142 and 144. My substantive Amendment 142 requires that the code of practice to the Mental Capacity Act and the government response to the independent review of the Mental Health Act must be laid before Parliament before the provisions of the Bill come into force. I shall focus on the latter, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the code of practice.
The independent review of the Mental Health Act is due to report its final recommendations on 12 December. I know this because last week I attended a helpful briefing given by Sir Simon Wessely to interested parliamentarians, in which he outlined his broad findings. However, until that review is published, we cannot know how its recommendations will impact precisely on this Bill.
We know that the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act are the only two pieces of legislation that allow a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of care and treatment and that, as such, there will inevitably be cross-over between the two. I thank the Minister for confirming in Committee that these documents would be produced before the Bill is enacted. However, I am concerned that the Bill could have completed its parliamentary passage by the time the Government respond to the independent review. Therefore this important debate is taking place in a vacuum of information on how people with severe mental illnesses could be affected by the proposed LPS.
Sir Simon Wessely has indicated that his review will not consider the full fusion of the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act, which some people were advocating a while back, but there are none the less many outstanding questions on the interaction of the Bill with the Mental Health Act and, frankly, until it has reported they are impossible to answer.
Under the Mental Health Act, there is no capacity test and the capacity-based principles of the Mental Capacity Act do not apply to mental health care or treatment provided under the Mental Health Act. People without capacity are nevertheless detained and treated under the Mental Health Act. We know there has been a dramatic rise in recent years in the number of those aged over 65 being treated under the Mental Health Act. Indeed, the Care Quality Commission has highlighted that both the broadening of the definition of deprivation of liberty in the light of the Cheshire West judgment and the associated overburdening of DoLS, which is what we are talking about, are likely to have played a role in this.
As a result, there are still crucial questions about how the independent review of the Mental Health Act will address people who lack capacity and what the implications may be for those who fall under the LPS regime depending on where the dividing line between the two Acts is drawn. It is an incredibly complex picture.
Let me say a couple of words finally to highlight and paint a picture of that complexity. It is not possible for a person to be subject to the LPS when they are already detained under the Mental Health Act, even if they lack capacity. However, it is possible for people who are in hospital to be subject to the LPS if they are not detained. The LPS was not primarily designed for people with severe mental illness whose conditions are likely to fluctuate, improve or be contested more frequently than, for example, dementia. While I have focused on the needs of those with severe mental illness under the LPS, many of the same points apply in the opposite direction.
I could go on but I will not. I hope these illustrations of how the Mental Capacity Act is applied to mental health patients, and the Mental Health Act to people without capacity, in these two overlapping legislative frameworks have shown the necessity for this amendment so that the two can be finally considered together, a point which I and many other noble Lords have raised consistently since Second Reading.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I feel sorry for the Minister that after so much agreement we are now criticising the Bill. However, the reason we have reached a happier state than the one we started off in in July is due to the work of a great many people, including the Minister and the Bill team.
I have put my name to several amendments in this group—I support my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in what they have said—and I shall speak to Amendments 143A and 147A.
In a way, the amendments are part of what should have happened before the Bill reached us; that is exactly right. It is important to note that a coalition of organisations is concerned about what is and is not in the Bill and how it will be implemented. For the record, we have discussed the Bill with at least 44 organisations in the very short time we have had to consider it. They include Mind, the Alzheimer’s Society, Liberty, Learning Disability England, Disability Rights UK, the Relatives & Residents Association, the Care Provider Alliance, VODG—the voluntary sector’s disability group—and many others. We must pay credit to both them and the noble Lords who have worked so hard on this for the fact that we have come to a point where the Bill has significantly changed and been improved.
Echoing what my noble friend said, the amendments ask that the revised codes of practice for the Mental Capacity Act take account of Schedule 1 to the Bill and, prior to the provisions in the Act coming into force, that the code be revised by statutory instrument using the “made affirmative” procedure. Amendment 143A states:
“Before any provisions of this Act other than those which come into force on its passing come into force … the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing which of the provisions of the Act will be consulted on, by whom and by when … publish his or her consideration of the conclusions of the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act … conduct further consultation with vulnerable people, families, charities, providers … publish an equality impact assessment on the impact of the provisions of this Act”.
I would like the Minister to say that the Government have done the equality impact assessment but I have missed it somehow. However, it seems that the Government are duty-bound to consider the impact on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. An equality impact assessment is the established way of the Government showing that they have considered the impact on vulnerable groups. That Act begs that this process should have been gone through in preparation for the Bill. I hope that a full equality impact assessment will be conducted and made available to the Commons when it considers the Bill.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I had not fallen asleep. We are nearly there. I put my name to Amendments 140 to 147A because they are important, although I suspect that they will not make it into the Bill. It is important to have these discussions at this stage.
In Committee, I tabled amendments on the review of the Mental Health Act and the code of practice. I still support them. The request for an equality impact assessment in Amendment 143A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is the right thing to do. The amendments ask the questions but the issues are still real and important. The amendments also relate to how a future Bill could be handled. Indeed, it helps us to look back to other Bills; I cite the Care Act, for example, where a Committee of both Houses went through the Bill over a prolonged period to ensure that by the time it hit your Lordships’ House, it was worth reviewing.
The Minister has done a very good job of pulling this all together so far; Third Reading is still to come. I understand full well that he will not put any of these amendments in the Bill, but he should take seriously the concerns that they raise from Members of your Lordships’ House.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I apologise for pre-empting the noble Baroness. I take the points raised in these amendments seriously, and I will attempt to deal with them as we go through. I applaud noble Lords for the contribution they have made in improving the legislation before us, but of course it is one thing getting the legislation in better order and another thing putting it into practice. I think that is what has inspired the amendments in this group. I will attempt to deal with them as comprehensively as I can and explain why we will not be accepting them in practice—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, pointed out—although we are dealing with them in spirit.
Amendments 140 and 146, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, require the Government to publish a list of every organisation we have consulted with. The noble Lord expressed concern about our response to his FOI request; as I understand it, there were some technical reasons why that did not elicit the information he was after. However, I hope the noble Lord will have seen the letter I sent following Committee, explaining that we have held over 50 engagement events since March 2017. I outlined the broad range of organisations that the Government have engaged with. That letter has been put in the Library and will be published online in due course.
I will not detain noble Lords by going through that list, but of course I am more than happy to circulate it again; indeed, it has obviously developed over time. We have engaged with care providers, a range of third-sector organisations, the royal colleges, stakeholders in local government, the NHS and the social care sector, and, critically, people who themselves have impaired capacity. That builds on three years of engagement conducted by the Law Commission in drawing up its draft Bill.
Nevertheless, I accept there is concern that we have moved too swiftly and that we have not always taken concerns on board. I know we have come in for some criticism for that, but we moved ahead with this Bill because of the urgent need for reform and because the system is not working. While I do not pretend our approach has been perfect, I and the Government feel it has been necessary to move ahead at pace.
The point I want to emphasise is that, in doing so, we have listened and acted. I am grateful to noble Lords for recognising the changes made as a consequence of challenges and ideas from them and other stakeholders. I also applaud the Bill team for responding and providing government amendments. I am pleased we have been able to move on some incredibly important topics, such as “unsound mind”, 16 and 17 year-olds, the point about IMCAs, thinking about when reviews should be considered by AMCPs, and so on.
As I said, in retrospect and as a lesson for the future, things could perhaps have been done differently. However, I believe we are in a much better place than we were at the start of the process as a consequence of our deliberations.
Amendments 141 and 147, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, would require us to publish a plan to ensure that all outstanding deprivation of liberty safeguards applications are settled. The noble Lord is right to worry about this issue and give us the cautionary tale of a too-abrupt switch to a new system and the chaos that can ensue.
On commencement of the new system, existing deprivation of liberty safeguards authorisations will continue until they expire, at which point a liberty protection safeguards authorisation will need to be arranged, or the person should be provided with alternative arrangements that do not amount to a deprivation of liberty—we are seeking less restrictive care wherever possible. Given the length of time for which these authorisations exist, that will provide for a degree of staggering of the case load through the implementation of the new scheme.
On the backlog itself, many local authorities are already working to clear this. Some innovative working models have been introduced and I would be happy to write to noble Lords about them. We are working closely with the LGA and ADASS, as well as the Welsh DoLS network, to provide examples of best practice so that we can move through that backlog and into the new system. There will of course be some outstanding cases as we move from one system to another, particularly if an application is made shortly before the date the new system comes in. We will need special arrangements in place for those, but I reassure all noble Lords that we are working closely with all the people and organisations who will be responsible for implementing the new system to ensure a smooth transition.
Baroness Barker
I just want to be clear: am I right that the code of practice would not be amendable when any debate came? Would it come before this House simply for information purposes?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
That would be correct at the point at which it came before the House, but it would be published for consultation before then. There will be an opportunity for everybody—noble Lords, Members of the other place and stakeholders—to consider a draft and to recommend changes. The final product would be laid before Parliament.
We discussed the Mental Health Act review a little bit last week. We await its conclusions. Many of us have had conversations with Sir Simon Wessely about what it is likely to conclude, and about the interaction between the Mental Health Act and the mental capacity Bill when enacted. Since we are expecting its recommendations in the middle of next month—I think the scheduled date is the 12th—we will have an opportunity to consider the review’s recommendations before we move to the new system. Indeed, given that those recommendations will be out at about the time the Bill moves to the Commons, they will clearly be the subject of debate there. The Government will need to respond to those findings as we go through the Commons stages.
Amendments 143A and 147A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would require the Government, before the new system could come into force, to conduct public consultation on the Act with vulnerable people and other stakeholders and publish a report on its findings, as well as to publish their response to the Mental Health Act review and an equality impact assessment. I hope that I have dealt with the issue of public consultation, as well as consultation on the code and, equally, on the Mental Health Act review. The noble Baroness is quite right to bring the equality impact assessment to the House’s attention. It was prepared prior to introduction and required amendment following input from the Welsh Government. It will now need to be amended further to reflect the changes made in the Bill. I can commit to publishing the equality impact assessment before the Bill makes it to the Commons so that there will be ample time for consideration before it is debated there.
If the House will allow me, I will finish by thanking all noble Lords for their perseverance and patience during a sometimes difficult and challenging debate. We know that we all want to achieve the same end to our journey; there has been disagreement at times on the right way to get there. I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. The Bill has been immeasurably improved already in its passage through this House. That is a very good thing in itself and will have a very positive impact—notwithstanding the slightly gloomy prospect given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—when it goes to the other place and on to implementation.
Once again, I extend my sincere gratitude to all noble Lords. I hope that I provided reassurances on the amendments in this group and that they will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. After such an uplifting response from him I do not want to drag us down again into negative thinking as we move on to Third Reading. I will just say that the problem with selective consultation is that it disfranchises some key respondents, and the problems we had over the summer were a consequence of that; it is a lesson to be learned for the future. I am grateful for the information about the work that has been done on the backlog. It will be important that the sector is clear as to which application falls under which part of the law. It is also very good that we will see the draft code in good time. Will the Minister arrange a briefing for noble Lords, rather than just going through a formal process? That would be extremely helpful.
Finally, Sir Simon Wessely’s review is clearly very important. It is obviously important that there be consistency, and the only thing I would say is that there are lessons for all of us for a future Bill in the way this Bill has been dealt with. There is no doubt in my mind that the issues raised by Sir Simon’s review lend themselves to pre-legislative scrutiny. Pre-legislative scrutiny is not fashionable any more, but my experience with the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill 2007 suggests that it doesn’t half pay off in terms of coherent legislation.
With that, I am very grateful to the Minister for his very full response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Economic Partnership Agreements and Trade Agreement) (Eastern and Southern Africa States, Southern African Development Community States, Ghana and Ecuador) Order 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fairhead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 July be approved.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, this order designates the economic partnership agreements with the Southern African Development Community, eastern and southern African states and Ghana and the protocol of Ecuador’s accession to the EU-Andean agreement as EU treaties pursuant to Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. This is a necessary step towards UK ratification of the agreements and works alongside the process of laying the treaty before Parliament for 21 days, as set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, known as the CRaG Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, has tabled an amendment to the Motion. I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s support for these agreements, and I will seek to respond to the points raised by the noble Lord in my opening remarks. Trade is an important tool in the fight against poverty. Over the last few decades, around 1 billion people have been lifted out of poverty, and international trade has played a very large part in bringing that about. By championing global free trade, we can help create growth and jobs across the developing world in a way that aid spending alone cannot. Before I address these agreements, I should note that they have all already been provisionally applied. They have already brought, and will continue to bring, benefits across a number of developing countries and to the UK.
I turn first to the three economic partnership agreements or EPAs. The UK is a long-standing supporter of EPAs, which differ from conventional free trade agreements in that they focus on the development needs of partner countries. Indeed, this House has already scrutinised and passed several other EPAs to date. I acknowledge the concerns raised about potential negative impacts of liberalisation on the economies of our developing country partners and the issues raised in the amendment to the Motion. As a responsible Government, we listen to such concerns and I am happy to reassure noble Lords that the agreements have taken them into account.
EPAs are deliberately and strongly asymmetrical in favour of developing countries. They give developing countries immediate duty-free access to our market, while EPA partners liberalise their markets gradually over a period of up to 25 years and to a lesser extent—protecting up to 25% of their product lines depending on their domestic situation. For example, the Seychelles, a high-income country, will liberalise 98% of tariff lines, whereas Mozambique, a least-developed country, will liberalise only 74%.
EPA partner countries have the ability to exclude their sensitive products from liberalisation, and they use it. For example, Ghana has excluded a number of agricultural goods such as meats, poultry, frozen fish and non-agricultural processed goods. EPAs also provide a range of safeguards for fledgling industries or for food security to protect African domestic products from possible EU competition. As the EPA partners gradually liberalise their markets over a period of many years, industries and consumers in Africa will benefit from cheaper inputs and consumer goods from the EU in non-sensitive sectors.
EPAs also take account of the social and economic circumstances of partner countries and provide development co-operation and assistance to help our partners address broader issues affecting trade, such as technical barriers to trade, labour rights, the environment, poor infrastructure or inefficient customs and border controls. Of course, they are negotiated agreements.
The EPAs we are considering today can deliver real benefits for manufacturers and farmers in developing countries and their communities. Specifically, they eliminate tariffs on processed and manufactured goods, keeping more of the value chain in the developing countries. They also offer simpler and more flexible rules of origin so that, when a producer in one country uses inputs from another, they do not have to pay customs duties when they export their final products to the EU. Both the southern African and eastern and southern African EPAs help regional economic integration by joining up those smaller markets.
The EPAs also bring advantages at home by reducing the cost of imports for our consumers—from Botswanan beef to South African wine. They will bring new opportunities in the future for UK exporters as EPA partners gradually liberalise their economies. We estimate that UK exports will increase over the coming years and be worth an additional £35 million annually from 2035 onwards. I am confident that the impact of these EPAs is positive for the developing nations and the UK and that local agriculture, industry and commerce will benefit and will continue to contribute to the well-being of the wider population through increased jobs and greater prosperity.
I turn now to South America and Ecuador’s accession to the EU-Andean agreement. This agreement has been in place since 2012 and last year trade to the EU increased 7% for Colombia, 16% for Peru and 20% in the first year of implementation for Ecuador. It is estimated that Ecuador’s accession will be worth £37 million annually to the UK’s GDP in 15 years’ time. For the UK specifically, the impact assessment suggests that exports have been increasing since the provisional application in early 2017. UK consumers should already be benefiting from lower prices, particularly for fruit and vegetables. I am confident that the benefits of the FTA can be enjoyed by importers and exporters of any size, with British businesses free to tap into the Ecuadorean market with even greater ease, benefiting from greater access across a range of service sectors and the government procurement market, as well as the removal of remaining tariffs in industries such as chemicals, textiles and telecoms.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Order does not appear to take into account the substantive issues raised to date about the impacts on local agriculture, industry and commerce, and the well-being of the wider population in the partner states to each agreement; expresses serious concern at the fundamental lack of accountability and parliamentary scrutiny available at present for treaties and trade agreements; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to come forward as soon as reasonably practicable with a series of proposals on how trade policy is to be determined after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am placed in rather an unusual situation because I had understood the conventions of the House to be that the Motion in the name of the Minister would be moved, I would speak to my amendment and she would then respond to that, but she has given her response first, which is extremely good—and of course I am completely at a loss as to how to respond. I do not really have much to say because I do not have a speech that will address that way of progressing. It probably comes to the same thing. The Minister is looking a bit panicked about what I have just said but I wanted to explain why what I shall say will be repetitive, although I will try to adapt it. Hansard will have a great job following me in this, but that is the reason for it.
The narrow thrust of the response concerned the wording of the amendment but, with respect to the Minister, I think she has missed the main purpose of the amendment, which is to try to engage with the Government—although she said she would engage in future—on a much deeper question about how we do trade more generally. In a sense, that is where I shall end up.
I make it clear at the start that I am not opposing the ratification of the EPA and its South American extension, in the agreement with Ecuador, because it should go forward. The process may be flawed and we want to raise issues on it but it is not sufficiently problematic for us to oppose it. In saying that, I speak with confidence that I have support around the House. I have a copy of a letter sent to the Minister by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who I think at that stage could not have spoken in the debate but may be tempted to address us later. I have also had correspondence with my noble friend Lord Judd, who is in his place and may want to contribute. Although what I will say is narrowly written, given what I thought I would be saying when I prepared it—this will have to be adapted as I read it—it comes with support from elsewhere around the Chamber.
The key question that we in Parliament have to address is: how do we assess trade, going forward? For almost 50 years, the EU has been negotiating economic partnership agreements on our behalf. We think there are probably about 40 of them involving over 90 countries, although the numbers are difficult to get. We recognise that they vary in scale and scope, as the Minister said, particularly when dealing with developing countries. The EU has developed a mature system for preparing, negotiating and seeking approval for these agreements on behalf of member states. At present, they cannot come into full force without being ratified by every member country. Although the systems are sometimes a bit different, the process we are in now allows the Government to ratify the agreements before us in a definitional way, rather than ratifying the individual wording.
It is a bit ironic that only now, at the very end of the process, is our Parliament—the interests that I have explained range further than this party—given a chance to consider these agreements. It is surely time to think again about why we do this, even if the opportunity that may come from the EU withdrawal Act allows us to put down something more concrete in future.
The amendment that I have tabled to the Government’s Motion expresses regret, but we will not pursue it to a vote. I have tabled it primarily to afford us the chance to debate these trade deals in the one and only time we have to do so; but secondly, in so doing to highlight the lack of proper scrutiny, consultation and debate given to these EPAs and the other agreement; and thirdly, to point out what needs to change if or when we regain control of our trade deals after Brexit day. This is material and important, and time is pressing.
To repeat a little of what the Minister said, the deals before us are a group of trade agreements which, taken together, share the noble aims of enhancing sustainable development and bearing down on poverty. That is to be welcomed. Some aspects of the deals that she mentioned respect the countries we are talking about. They differ from traditional trade agreements by ensuring that there are asymmetries in favour of the developing country, which include, as she said, long liberalisation periods, flexible rules of origin and the exclusion of sensitive products from direct competition. They also strive to increase regional integration, as she mentioned, through regional preference clauses that make countries in the same region provide the same advantages to each other as they will do to the EU.
However, the worry is that these agreements have not lived up to the intentions of the EU negotiators. Many of the least developed countries already had special access to EU markets through the non-reciprocal “Everything But Arms” scheme. But under these EPAs, developing countries are being asked to open up to 80% of their markets to European goods and services within a decade of signing. Opening up domestic producers to EU competition so fast has led some to fear that it will decimate their local domestic industries. Carlos Lopes, the high representative of the African Union, has said:
“Africans have serious concerns about how the EPAs would affect their industrial development and the African Continental Free Trade Area”.
Some of the partner states have also complained that tariff reductions have eliminated a crucial source of revenue, which Governments desperately need to provide basic public services and invest for future growth. According to the UN economic commission, Ghana alone could lose about $300 million in revenue if it signs the EPA. Tax collection is notoriously difficult in many of these partner countries, where tariffs were a reliable source of otherwise elusive government funds.
Spio-Garbrah, the former Ghanaian Minister for Trade and Industry, says that as the EPA also requires the Economic Community of West African States to open its markets over a period, it is Ghanaian manufacturers, not exporters, who, if they are not competitive, may face challenges from European imports that may be cheaper, of better quality and more attractive to consumers. Yao Graham, co-ordinator of the Third World Network, said:
“In the manufacturing and other industrial sectors, the EPA will cost about 40,000 jobs in ten years. We also anticipate that there will be a collapse of domestic industry especially in the … manufacturing sector … It will also undermine ECOWAS economic integration and the wider process of intra Africa trade and lead to the loss of government revenue from trade duties”.
There are also claims that EPAs might become a barrier to intra-African trade. Carlos Lopes said:
“In most areas, the EPAs will actually hurt intra-African trade, weakening trade revenues and undermining trade-driven industrialisation in Africa”.
There may be unintended consequences in trying to tailor each EPA to a specific country or region. The EU may have created contradictions in treatment between African countries. It is not surprising that certain African countries have claimed that they agreed to sign the agreements only under duress. It has been said that throughout the negotiations the EU threatened not only to remove the special least-developed country preferences available under the EU-African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states programmes but to withhold generalised system of preferences benefits from more advanced African economies.
Of course, we surely need some idea of how these deals will benefit the UK economy, but when you look for an impact assessment, no figures have been produced. The Department for International Trade recognises that there is no econometric modelling for the impact of some of these EPAs on UK trade and assumes, particularly in respect of the Ghana and ESA agreements, that the same modelling that has been applied to the SADC agreement will apply, while noting that,
“the econometric modelling available does not provide the impact of increased exports on UK GDP, so this cannot be included in the NPV calculation”.
So we are a little blind about where the benefits come from.
So, despite good intentions, these EPAs, some of which have been characterised as having colonial overtones, have come to represent the very worst of international trade policy—at least, so it has been argued. Instead of initiating African growth, we are initiating an African decline. Instead of spreading good will, we are spreading resentment. Instead of creating friends, we may be creating foes. Can the Minister shed some light on how the EU came to promote these deals, despite the concerns expressed by civil society and, more importantly, people in the countries themselves?
Surely the lesson to learn from this debate is that trade matters. It matters because it is so fundamental in shaping the world in which we live. Modern trade deals such as this are no longer simply about tariffs, as they cover services as well as vast areas of public policy. Modern trade deals have to be constructed with proper consideration for the environment, workers’ rights and human rights if we are to live by our principles. At the very least, we must respect our international obligations, be they on climate change, endangered species or the arms trade. We should go further and ensure that trade is used to make the world a better place.
We do not yet know whether the withdrawal agreement with the EU will survive. Certainly, from what the Minister said, we have a few years in which we will be able to see how this works in practice. I hope she will accept that there needs to be preparation for a possible future post-Brexit trade policy. We should also be putting pressure on the Government, while they are still part of the rule-making process, to ensure that any other trade deals struck by the EU are based on enduring principles as well as a foundation of transparency and consultation.
For example, the Trade Justice Movement is proposing some red lines for future EU trade policy, and UK trade policy, should that be independent. The points it makes include that trade deals: should be developed with full democratic scrutiny which provides for the involvement of the public, civil society and Parliament; should not take precedence over other societal priorities; should not lead to a race to the bottom on labour rights; should preserve the right to make policy in the public interest and make sure of the precautionary principle; should exclude public services; should allow Governments to regulate and tax international investment; should exclude ISDS mechanisms; should ensure that e-commerce is properly regulated and taxed; and should not prevent government using public procurement to support local communities to achieve social and environmental goals. That is a very ambitious but rather good list of issues that we think should be addressed by any new policy.
Underlying all that is surely the by-now unanswerable case for Parliament being involved in all stages of trade negotiations. Consultation, with committees being sent information, is not enough. We must have a system that will extend to existing EU trade deals that we might wish to roll over from the EU after exit day and will begin the long and difficult process of preparing for new ones.
The Government keep insisting that now is not the time to bring forward new plans, but I see no reason not to use the stranded Trade Bill to establish a new system for considering trade. Indeed, if we ever get to Committee, we have tabled a number of probing amendments on this and related issues that are available from the Printed Paper Office. On procedures, for example, we are proposing a new Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, modelled loosely on the Intelligence and Security Joint Committee. It would be charged with agreeing the mandate for future trade negotiations, overseeing the progress of negotiations and producing reports on how the agreements would work for the benefit of our national interest as well as that of the partner state. Such a committee could be responsible for recommending trade agreements to both Houses of Parliament for approval and reviewing the success or otherwise of existing deals.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. However, I should say at the outset that I am not quite as sanguine as she is about the benign nature of the EPAs. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for tabling his amendment to regret this SI, drawing attention not only to the shortcomings of the current parliamentary procedures when it comes to accountability and the scrutiny of trade deals but also to the iniquities of the EU EPAs. Although we on these Benches will not oppose ratification, we think it important to draw attention to some of the issues that the EPAs will raise politically, both for ourselves and the EU and for the third-world countries in Africa that I will predominantly be talking about.
The economic issues raised will not be that immense but I think the political ones are problematic. EPAs are controversial. The key question that arises is: who benefits more from EPAs, the partner country from the ACP nations—African, Caribbean and Pacific—or the member states of the EU? That is a question worth asking because EPAs were conceived as drivers of change to kick-start reform and contribute to good economic governance, helping ACP partners to attract investment and boost their economic growth. However, I am more inclined to agree with Traidcraft when it says in its well-argued briefing that rather than doing what they say on the tin, EPAs instead undermine development and hinder regional integration. Take, for example, Tanzania in east Africa, part of the ESA EPA. Tanzania, as a least-developed country, currently with duty-free and quota-free access in the EU under “Everything But Arms”, obviously has little interest in an EPA that offers reciprocal preferential access. Why would it?
On the other hand, Kenya, a non-LDC, stands to lose preferential market access for flowers in the EU if the EPA is not signed. Your Lordships will see the problems posed by EPAs pitting one east African nation against another. That is certainly not conducive to regional harmony, let alone promoting regional trade integration.
This is especially problematic now that efforts have been stepped up about the African Continental Free Trade Area. AfCFTA is unlikely to be fully implemented for some time, but it is indisputable that Africa needs regional integration without distractions, so that African countries can give each other the same preferential access as they give the EU. In the words of Vera Songwe, executive-secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Africa, and formerly a country director and senior economist at the World Bank:
“There should be a strategic pause on the EPA negotiation processes until the finalization of the CFTA”.
Will the Minister comment? It does not need much imagination to see that premature liberalisation will undermine development of infant industries and domestic production, leading to a decline in manufacturing and industrialisation and increased unemployment.
How shall we proceed? One way forward as we negotiate further free-trade agreements once—or if—we leave the EU and the implementation period is over, would be to pursue a more flexible EPA agenda which addresses specific concerns of the ACP countries, for example allowing greater flexibility if it can be shown that specific clauses undermine regional integration. EPA support measures could be reinforced to satisfy the requirements to promote inclusive and sustainable growth, in keeping with the sustainable development goals.
In particular, we should strive to meet the overarching commitment to leave no one behind. Under SDG 9, “Industry, innovation and infrastructure”, the UK has committed to meet targets 9.1 and 9.2. Paragraph 9.1 commits us to:
“Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure”.
Paragraph 9.2 commits us to:
“Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization”.
It would be useful to hear from the Minister what thought has been given to how the UK will approach trade deals with the developing world, should the unthinkable happen and we leave the EU with no idea of our destination—something that seems about to happen, maybe. I have little doubt that, should the opportunity to renegotiate these deals arise, they will be embraced enthusiastically by EPA countries.
Before ending, I raise reservations about the current process of ratification of international treaties and trade agreements. That this debate is taking place after implementation underscores how ludicrous is the current process, lacking accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. It is crying out for reform. The need for urgent reform is reinforced by the Government’s impact assessments, which are inadequate to say the least. Those for the Ghana agreement are a case in point. Within it are claims of unequivocal benefits from the agreement, despite acknowledging that there is a lack of quantifiable data to back up those claims. The assessment is one-sided and limited to the impact on the UK, with no mention of development impact. It makes unfounded claims that the Ghana EPA will support “more-integrated regional markets” and “simpler and more flexible rules of origin”, with no mention of the political friction created by Ghana signing a stand-alone agreement outside its customs union. Some might say that it was signed under duress.
Further, the impact assessments, although they concede a net deficit for Ghana, nevertheless, still propose that this is a developmentally friendly agreement. Examples can also be found in the other impact assessments, including the SADC countries—the South African Development Community—whose assessment states clearly that the impact on poverty reduction will be marginal.
It is clear that these impact assessments are not fit for purpose and highlight why greater parliamentary scrutiny of free-trade agreements is essential if the UK leaves the EU and moves towards negotiating its own trade agreements.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, I was not sure that I would still be here this evening, but owing to changes in the timetable I am delighted to be here. The noble Baroness has already received advance notice of some of these remarks.
I support the amendment to the Motion because, from my limited understanding, ratification of these SIs has been a very disappointing procedure both in another place and in this House. It seems as though Parliament has somehow been the loser when it no longer has any influence in these international agreements. It is therefore perhaps inevitable that the Opposition have tabled an amendment, which deserves support from around the House.
I welcome the noble Lord’s remarks, first about the Trade Bill, because this is a preamble to what we expect to come; it is just a rehearsal. I also agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we need a committee dedicated to this particular subject—as we reorganise the EU committees, perhaps. There is no question about that.
Be that as it may, as we have heard, there are questions hanging around the EPAs from a decade ago that still concern many organisations with expertise on trade. I have worked with some of them over the many years that I have been working on development. Taking Africa alone, I can think of worries about rules of origin, GIs, reciprocity, and about tax—in short, about whether EPAs or interim EPAs are really worth having when you already have 100% access to EU markets through the EBA agreements and the GSP+. There is also a concern, as we have heard, about whether the regional groupings such as SDEC and ECOWAS can truly reflect the situation of individual states, which are all so different. Then there is education: how many citizens in these countries are sufficiently aware of the pros and cons of entering these agreements?
I know that I am bringing up very old concerns that have been expressed by civil society over many years. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will follow me and show some of his experience of fair trade over many years. ActionAid, ODI and Traidcraft have done a lot of work on the effects of EPAs on wealthier countries such as Ghana and Kenya. But the question is whether our Government have provided enough answers. Should there not have been more impact assessments to accompany these SIs? The whole point of scrutiny is that you are given a proper opportunity to make judgments, and quite apart from the strange ratification process already referred to, it seems that proper briefing on this occasion has been sadly lacking. So does the Minister agree, apart from answering all the questions first, that this whole procedure is back to front anyway; and, secondly, does she believe that some countries affected are being dragged into this by the EU without proper consultation and examination?
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, there is nothing I like more than to oblige the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. It was good to hear what he had to say.
Central to our whole approach to European Union matters at this moment is the concept of bringing government home and of increasing our powers of scrutiny and accountability. Treaties of this kind, with their immense implications, opportunities and dangers for vulnerable and young economies, are no exception if we are to follow through the logic of what we have been arguing. It is not satisfactory to have an arrangement whereby the Government will listen to those committees with adjacent and valid observations to make. This House needs to have specific arrangements for scrutinising what is being done in this context.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right to ask how trade policy agreements and treaties will be determined after we withdraw from the European Union. In fact, this is a matter that concerns your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, and it has launched an inquiry to investigate the efficacy of our role in the scrutiny of treaties and how this should be handled post Brexit. I am sure that it will welcome the Minister’s undertaking regarding consultation and engagement.
At the moment, these arrangements are scrutinised by the European Union Parliament and the Commission, and we receive them for approval as secondary legislation. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looks at this but of course, as other noble Lords have said, there is very limited scope for comment because the arrangements have already been agreed.
I sit on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and our work is to see how these treaties slot in and work with UK law. We had two examples at our meeting yesterday. One dealt with CITES, the arrangement regarding international trade in endangered species, and the other was the Nagoya agreement, which deals with animal tissues—both important matters. The purpose of the statutory instrument is to ensure that these arrangements continue after Brexit, and all the committee did was to make sure that the wording was more appropriate; it did not change anything else.
However, the Explanatory Memorandum promises a further document that will attract the affirmative procedure and transfer powers of enforcement from the Commission to the Secretary of State. So my noble friend is right: here, we are concerned only with the mechanics, not with the rights and wrongs of the arrangement.
My noble friend gave the figure of 40. A paper prepared by an experienced clerk to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says that in the last seven years the UK has been party to 225 new treaties. By treaties, he means agreements with a specific country or with an organisation such as Euratom, or a thematic agreement such as the convention on pollutants. We have also had statutory instruments putting in place the mechanism for enforcing sanctions against other countries. For instance, we recently had one against North Korea.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, made the point that at present the principle of these arrangements is agreed elsewhere. Our work in future will be to scrutinise them from the point of view not only of UK law but of UK usage: the way we do things; compatibility with our values, way of life, standards and priorities, as other noble Lords have mentioned.
So my noble friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. These treaties will require a lot of scrutiny, consideration and careful thought. I join my noble friend in asking the Minister to come forward with proposals on how these matters will be determined after our withdrawal. I am sure that your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee will also be interested in the Minister’s response. This is intimately bound up with my noble friend’s amendment calling on the Government for proposals on how trade policy will be determined. These treaties affect so many of the non-tariff barriers that noble Lords have raised. These non-tariff barriers are now much more important than financial tariffs, especially to a country such as ours, where services are a major part of the economy. I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Fairhead
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. If I breached convention, I offer my apologies particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I was aiming to address some concerns and did it in a different way. Some of these points are absolutely apposite to the SI, while others talk about the future; I will just glance on these, because I understand the issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, talked about a number of challenges, such as the development benefits and merits of EPAs versus unilateral preferences. There is a little bit of history here, in that some of our previous unilateral preferences were deemed not to be WTO-compatible, so we had to move to a different mechanism. We have chosen EPAs because they are much more development-focused, and the aim is to promote and increase trade over time. Having studied EPAs and preferences, I have seen that not all but most countries get better access under EPAs than they would under preferences.
For example, two-thirds of markets are open to Ghana—which I visited recently—for tariff-free access under preferences, but 100% under the EPA. Its prepared fish, coffee beans and cocoa would be affected. I went to a tuna-processing factory while there and heard that they were particularly keen that we continue that EPA, because they saw the benefit. Opening up needs to be done over time, as we agreed, because these are developing countries and liberalisation takes time. In addition, we provide support through improving trade facilitation and customs rules. A lot of our development funding also supports these nations. We are here not to create foes but friends. We are here to build mature, long-term trading relationships, and to open them up asymmetrically. I am happy to confirm, by way of demonstrating that these are seen as attractive, that all parties to the EPAs have expressed an interest in rolling them over to provide continuity. If they were really so unhappy about them, I do not think they would do that.
Lord Judd
I am obviously heartened that the noble Baroness agrees there is an issue, but there is perhaps one specific aspect on which she might give us a word or two. In evolving situations, what is suitable at one point will not be suitable at another—she has alluded to this herself. We have to be careful about what may seem appropriate at one stage if, for example, a country wants to start processing its primary produce. That is quite a hot issue. Are we in favour of its development or are we not? If we are, how do we facilitate its becoming a player and marketing its manufactured and processed primary products? Such a country may become very competitive in the world economy—but then we keep hearing about how competition is a good thing. We need a bit more detail on this.
Baroness Fairhead
We are trying to make these countries long-term trading partners. We provide support to help build and encourage investment, and it is likely that that will increase the processing capability of some of their plants, and will, therefore, potentially create competition for some of our companies. In a sense, however, that is what we are trying to do: to bring up trade. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, trade matters and can lift up nations. It is not about a single point in time; we are trying to encourage investment to help these nations move up and become long-term, mature trading partners that we can continue to deal with in the future.
I turn now to another area raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan: the question of regional integration. The EU has been one of the biggest supporters of African integration and efforts to deliver a continent-wide agreement. The EU has aligned the EPAs with the existing economic and customs union, seeing that as the best way, according to the preferences of EPA partners. It is clear that they are numerous and overlapping, not by the design of the EU but because we have worked with the flow of what it has done. To try to support regional integration, we are encouraging the African states to extend to each other the same level of liberalisation. This is to make sure that they aim to prevent increased imports from the EU displacing imports from neighbouring countries.
The issue has not been raised—I can hear it coming—but the most-favoured nation clause that might result from that is specifically designed to ensure that it applies only to major economies, and that excludes most of the African nations. We are genuinely trying to work with the flow of regional integration.
On the point raised about the AfCFTA by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, it is a cross- African CTA that is being worked on and, as she will know, it has taken a while. We will continue to support the efforts to do that but in the meantime we believe that EPAs are a way of allowing those countries to progress.
As to the economic benefits, because these are EPAs they are asymmetric in favour of the developing nations and that is why we are seeing limited benefits in the short and medium term to the EU countries, including the UK.
The noble Lords, Lord Haskel, Lord Judd and Lord Stevenson, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, raised the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was helpful in laying out what the current scrutiny is under the EU system. In taking forward the existing trade agreements, we have said that we will try to replicate them to provide as much continuity as possible. In the interests of providing parliamentary scrutiny, we will make sure that a report is prepared outlining any changes that have been made and provide opportunities for debates in both Houses to allow Members to comment on those change before ratification under the normal procedure. So we have tried to address the issue of trade continuity agreements.
This SI is not about future trade policy nor about our future scrutiny arrangements. As I said in my opening remarks, an Oral Statement was made in the other place by the Secretary of State, who laid out some of the ways in which we will engage. There will be a 14-week engagement across civil society, with unions and businesses, and that consultation is taking place on four potential free trade agreements. We will then create an outline approach which, again, will be made public and available to Parliament. Through that process, reports and accounts will be laid before both Houses.
In this House there are a number of Lords committees but none with a specific remit on trade policy. It is not for me to determine for the House of Lords what committee would be appropriate but, as I said, I am keen to talk to noble Lords and hear their ideas. At the moment we are working out our proposals but, ultimately, if any new committee were established it would be for the House of Lords to make its own decision on what that would be.
On the question of involving civil society on these existing EPAs, as I have said, we are continuing to engage actively with civil society. However, under the existing EU approach, there is a joint civil society engagement which takes place under the existing SADC EPA to allow those states’ approach to an effective implementation of the EPA, and it is on the implementation side where that civil society involvement is continuing.
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara—trade matters. We need to get that right. We remain committed to engaging further with Parliament as we develop an independent trade policy. We will continue to work with stakeholders across the UK to ensure that our policy delivers for this great nation.
I encourage noble Lords to support the UK’s ratification of these agreements, which will demonstrate to these countries the importance to the UK of agreements with them, as well as our commitment to development and global prosperity.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
It would be conventional for the Minister to persuade me to withdraw my amendment, if she could. Otherwise, the implication is that the Minister is quite happy for it to be moved.
Baroness Fairhead
I would be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am sorry about that bit of theatre. It just makes the point that the structure has to be right or we cannot get to where we want to be: a mutually agreeable situation.
I thank all speakers for participating in the debate. As I said, the aim all along was to have a debate on issues on which we agree. More about this issue unites than divides us, and it is good to have a chance of an open debate on issues of such importance. In fact, it was a special treat to have such expertise and experience represented by the noble Lords who spoke; we were able to pick up on some important points that I am sure we will want to take away and think about when we come to read Hansard.
In her contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, used the examples of Kenya and Tanzania. She made all the points that had been picked up elsewhere about the difficulties for two countries with common boundaries yet completely different profiles on where they want to get to as societies with different experiences and opportunities. As she said, the present arrangements are unlikely to result in regional harmony, let alone the growth in economic activity that we all want.
I will read the Minister’s second speech in Hansard quite closely. She used “we” quite a lot in relation to the way in which these treaties have developed. It is quite unusual these days to find Ministers of Her Majesty’s Government talking as if they were speaking on behalf of the organisation with which we are all involved—the EU—but I take it that she used that word in the sense of the EU trying to achieve certain aims and objectives. That may be a small point, but I enjoyed it. The EU has done some good work in this area; despite the criticisms we have all heard, there is something of value at the end of this process. We should recognise that.
However, the points made by my noble friend Lord Judd are very important. We must not fall into the trap of assuming that some sort of “Made in Brussels”—I do not mean that in a negative sense—mode of liberalisation is the right one for the range of countries we have to deal with. It must be a question of fitting what is appropriate to where the various areas and countries are. I take the point that, by working with the existing arrangements in Africa and South America, there is a better chance of those arrangements working and bringing us the benefits that we are looking for. On the other hand, it is clear from the comments I read out, which other noble Lords have mentioned, that there is some dispute about that. Again, that makes the point that this issue is important and we must not let it go by default; we must engage with it in some way. Even if we go down the routes being offered to us, the question of who assesses that and under what terms of reference—for example, what success looks like—is uncomfortable for those who spoke tonight. Perhaps the Minister could take that away.
Moving on to the future, I do not want to sound too critical but, although there was a welcome sense that engagement with Parliament is an important aspect of the work going on in the department, I did not get the impression that any of the proposals made by either myself or other noble Lords—such as my noble friend Lord Haskel on behalf of the committees he is involved in—reached out in a way that fits with the purpose of the amendment. We may need to go through the Trade Bill and pick up the points there, because there are amendments down that would certainly open up that opportunity. To make the point more fully, if all we are being offered is a bit more information, a bit more consultation at arm’s length, a bit more engagement with civic society, but no real sharing of the process of agreeing and moving forward the agenda, I do not think that fits where we are in terms of where people want to be on trade. Trade is important because it matters, and if it matters then people need to find an echo of that.
Although I mentioned them in my speech, I did not hear the Minister talk about the devolved Administrations. Clearly, it is not her departmental brief to do that, but if we do not get that right, we will all just go into a brick wall at great speed and it will not work. These matters will be devolved to these Administrations and they will have their own views. There has to be some structure, some constitutional arrangement, which gives them confidence that their justifiable and important issues will be raised as part of the process.
It may be that a Lords committee is the right solution, but I do not think that takes the trick. I will argue very forcibly in the Trade Bill that we need to think harder about what powers are given, to whom, and for what purpose, and what process will help to engage the country thereafter. There is a frustration that the lack of information and movement on this will build up. If I can leave the Minister with this, my feeling is that you cannot leave this too long. It may be that, if everything goes smoothly with the Prime Minister’s proposals, there will be a period of two years, or possibly longer, in which we can work these things out, but there is a lot of interest and expectation now and I think it would be a mistake not to recognise that going forward.
With that, and with the Minister’s strong request that I withdraw my amendment ringing in my ears, I beg leave to withdraw.