House of Commons
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
I bring apologies from the Secretary of State this morning. He will not be attending these proceedings because he is attending vital cross-party meetings in Downing Street—[Interruption.] I am sure that Members across the House will understand that those meetings are vitally important at this stage.
In answer to Question 1, in the 2017 autumn Budget, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was allocated an additional £310 million to support its work on EU exit preparations in this financial year, 2018-19, with a further £10 million being repurposed from existing budgets. DEFRA is using that additional funding to prepare for and deliver its ambitious programme of EU exit activities in readiness for all scenarios, including preparations for the UK leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement, as is the duty of a responsible Government.
Mr Speaker
Further to what the Minister has just said, I advise the House that the Secretary of State, in keeping with his usual courtesy, informed me last night of his intended absence. I shall greatly miss him, but we look forward to seeing the fellow again before too long.
Mr Hollobone
Well, I am not sure that the House does understand the Secretary of State’s absence, Mr Speaker. DEFRA questions are only half an hour long; surely those meetings could have been delayed for 30 minutes. My question to the Minister is: will DEFRA be 100% ready in the event of us having to leave with no deal?
David Rutley
The Department is working flat out to prepare for no deal. As the House knows, we are bringing on the onshoring of environment, agriculture and fisheries policies, involving 55 major projects and 120 statutory instruments. We will be recruiting around 2,700 officials to ensure that we are well prepared in a no-deal scenario.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
We know that householders are stockpiling food and that businesses are spending money that they can ill afford, as is the Minister’s Department, on a no-deal Brexit that would harm the food industry, the farming industry and of course the chemicals industry, which his Department regulates. In a phone call on Tuesday night, the Chancellor said that a no-deal Brexit would be ruled out and off the table by the end of next week. Does the Minister agree?
David Rutley
The best way to avoid no deal is by agreeing a deal, and that is why we are working constructively—[Interruption.] The House made its views clear on the Government’s proposed deal and we are now working constructively with major parties across the House to get a deal in place. I am just disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition did not turn up to do that, and that he has not even agreed with the advice of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
The Secretary of State is sorely missed this morning. I wanted to commend him for his barnstorming speech last night. Hon. Members and others like myself who represent farming constituencies all received letters before Tuesday’s vote from the farming organisations—the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Tenant Farmers Association—saying that “above all” they wanted to see a no-deal Brexit ruled out. Given the overwhelming majority in Parliament for that, will the Minister give us some reassurance that the Government will support the view of the majority?
David Rutley
Well, I will do my very best to make up for the absence of our esteemed Secretary of State, who did indeed put in a fantastic performance yesterday. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are working closely with the NFU and the farming sector in seeking to find that deal. We know that many farmers voted to leave, but few wanted to leave with no deal. That is why we are working incredibly hard to ensure that we get that deal into place.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
David Rutley
The EU has its own challenges, which it is no doubt seeking to take forward. We are clear that we want to take a deal forward. We felt that the deal was a good deal, but Parliament has had its say. We are now responding constructively in these negotiations, and I am grateful to the Scottish National party for taking that forward. I just wish that Labour would take a similar stance.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Last Saturday I had the honour of attending the plough service to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Staffordshire NFU, an extremely good organisation representing farmers throughout my constituency. At that service, a number of members came up to me and expressed how concerned they are about any prospect of no deal. Will my hon. Friend set out what the consequences would be for my farmers if there were, indeed, no deal?
David Rutley
The Secretary of State has made it clear in his contributions here and at the recent farming conference in Oxford that there could be significant disruption for the farming sector, which is why we are working very hard to make sure that Staffordshire NFU members and farmers across the country get the best possible protection. I meet the NFU every week to listen to and work through its concerns and, of course, the No. 1 priority is to make sure we get this deal. Again, I am grateful to those parties that have sought to become part of that process and dialogue.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
David Rutley
I can assure the hon. Lady that I am not the future Prime Minister. That will not happen. She does not have to worry about that. [Interruption.] Well, I am certainly not. I am merely filling in for him while he is not here.
The hon. Lady asks an important question, which other hon. Members have also asked. We want to make sure that protections are in place, and we want to get this deal in place, because a no deal would potentially have a disruptive effect on farmers. We will work together closely to ensure a deal happens.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is absolutely right that the Government prepare for all eventualities, including no deal, but does my hon. Friend share my sense of incredulity at hearing those who spent most of this week attacking the deal on the table, and attacking every other deal the EU has ever done, now complaining about the prospect of there not being one?
David Rutley
That is the case we made. The Government and many Conservative Members felt that the deal was a good deal, but clearly we now need to respond to what the House has said, and we are doing that.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is a well-intentioned fella. Will he take a strong message from those of us who care about DEFRA, the environment and our farming sector that we do care, that we are willing to help get this right and that we are willing to do so on an all-party basis, as long as we can bury this nonsense of a no-deal Brexit?
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman is also a good fella with good intentions, and I share his concerns about no deal. What we need to do now is to find a deal that the House can unite behind. The Secretary of State would say that if he were in his place, and it is important that the Leader of the Opposition now joins that process.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I, too, am sorry not to see the Secretary of State in his place at the Dispatch Box after what was quite the bravura audition yesterday. Someone once said:
“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want.”
It seems that those cards and paths have been pretty expensive so far. Can the Minister tell us whether his Department’s largesse has sorted out the export health certificate system, which of course relies on a single spreadsheet? Has he made export agreements with 154 countries to replace the EU agreements? Lastly, has this been the worst poker hand ever played?
David Rutley
Lots of questions there, but I can assure the hon. Lady that I am even more saddened not to see the Secretary of State here because I am having to answer all his questions on this subject.
On the hon. Lady’s substantive point, we are working on the export health certificate process, and we are working on the other trade agreements. My hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the farming Minister, is working on those issues as well. Each of those steps is being dealt with.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
The Government will introduce the necessary legislation to increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years’ imprisonment as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Stephen Timms
I am grateful for that answer, but the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs called for five-year maximum sentences in 2016, Ministers promised that in 2017 and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said last June that it would be in place by the end of March this year, but there is still no sign of it happening. Why has there been such a long delay? Can the Under-Secretary give us a firm, reliable timeframe for when this much-needed change will actually take place?
David Rutley
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are moving as fast as we can on this. We need to find the right legislative vehicle, but it is our intention to take this forward, as I told yesterday’s Public Bill Committee on Finn’s law.
Angela Smith
Can the Minister confirm whether any DEFRA Minister, including the Secretary of State, has had any discussions on five-year sentencing with either the Leader of the House or the Chief Whip in order to secure parliamentary time for this measure?
David Rutley
A very active dialogue is going on to determine the right vehicle, involving the usual channels within the House; those conversations have taken place.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Can the Government get out of crawler gear and get into first or second, because we have to bring about this five-year sentencing? At the moment, someone who pleads guilty to a horrendous crime of animal cruelty gets a maximum of four months, because they get an automatic 30% reduction. It is crazy that huge amounts of animal welfare abuse happens and we have such short sentences. So please get on with it.
David Rutley
We will get on with it. We take animal welfare seriously; we have introduced a third-party ban on sales of puppies and kittens, and we are working on this very actively.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
The Government have made it clear that our exit from the EU will not lead to a lowering of our high animal welfare standards. Our regulatory system will offer the same level of assurance of animal welfare following our departure from the EU as it does now. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will ensure that existing EU standards are maintained once we leave the EU, and we are actively exploring options for strengthening the UK system in the future.
David Rutley
The measure we announced on 23 December will make sure that there is a ban on third-party sales of puppies and kittens, which will mean that unscrupulous breeders and puppy farmers will no longer be able to hide. This is an important piece of legislation and it shows that we have got into a much higher gear on animal welfare legislation.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The International Trade Secretary has been touring the world negotiating trade deals in the past few months. Will the Minister say precisely what involvement DEFRA Ministers have in ensuring that animal welfare issues are contained in any agreement that that Secretary of State is concluding?
David Rutley
DEFRA leads on agricultural issues in these trade deals and there is a clear intention that our standards will not be watered down.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Can the Minister lay to rest some of the vile scare stories that have been emanating in the past few months about how, in certain circumstances in which we may leave the EU, there will be a diminution in animal care standards? Can he confirm that whatever the circumstances after 29 March we will retain the highest possible standards?
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I assure him that we will make sure the existing regulations come over and we will maintain those high standards.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Inside or outside the EU, Boohoo, the online retailer, has been found to be advertising clothing as “faux fur” when in fact it has contained animal fur, including rabbit. So may I ask what checks are in place and what action the Government are prepared to take to ensure that there is no animal cruelty in the clothing industry?
David Rutley
The hon. Lady raises an important point. This is a clear trading standards issue and, as I understand it, action has been taken, as it should be in those circumstances.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Last year, the Department commissioned a review of serious and organised crime in the waste sector. Recommendations from that review informed our strategic approach, which we set out in the resources and waste strategy. That includes plans to prevent, detect and deter all forms of waste crime, including with the creation of a joint unit for tackling waste crime and a dedicated disruption team.
Mr Clarke
I thank the Minister for that answer. We also face the problem of casual fly-tipping. Residents in Guisborough have been appalled by some of the examples we have seen on Wilton Lane and on the moor road. Will she set out what the Government are doing to address that, too?
Dr Coffey
Fly-tipping is a genuine blight on local communities. Additional powers have been given to councils, and from this month local authorities now have the power to issue penalties of up to £400 to householders who have ignored their duty of care and whose waste is fly-tipped. The message is very clear: when somebody comes to offer to take your waste away, check online and check their licence to see that they are legitimate, because otherwise you could be getting a fine from your council.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Following on from that question, rural crime is a major issue, particularly in the villages around Warwick and Leamington. Across the whole of Warwickshire it is costing about £650,000 to clear up fly-tipping, but wider crime is also an issue. What does the Minister recommend I should be saying to farmers in my communities?
Dr Coffey
It is important that evidence is gathered to try to tackle the issue. I know that farmers are taking preventive action to try to stop people entering their areas illegally. It matters that we also work together on other issues of rural crime, such as hare coursing, and other significant routes used by serious and organised crime to try to exploit the countryside.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the Minister intend to liaise with the Ministry of Justice on increasing the ability of the judiciary to make examples of those who flout the law? The fines are less than the financial advantage of waste disposal, which does not add up.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
The Agriculture Bill is a central part of the Government’s programme of legislation to deliver a smooth departure from the European Union. It is the most significant reform of agricultural legislation in more than 70 years. The Bill creates powers to build a new environmental land management system; to incentivise higher animal welfare; to support technology and investment on farms; and to improve fairness and transparency in the supply chain.
Craig Tracey
I welcome the Agriculture Bill, because for nearly 50 years our farmers have been tied to a fundamentally flawed common agricultural policy where payments are skewed towards the largest landowners. Can the Minister provide further detail on the public goods that will be rewarded under the new scheme?
George Eustice
I thank my hon. Friend for the sterling work he did on the Agriculture Bill Committee and as a member of the DEFRA team until recently. As he says, we are completely changing the focus of our agricultural support for the delivery of public goods. That could include improving habitats, water quality and soil health, promoting biodiversity, advancing animal welfare and allowing public access.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister will have received the letter sent to every single Member of this House from all of the farming leaders asking the Government to take no deal off the table. That would also unlock meaningful cross-party talks on how we get out of this total mess, so why will the Government not do that?
George Eustice
The way to get no deal off the table is to agree a deal and to engage in a discussion about it. I simply say to hon. Members: what kind of deal do they think they would get from the European Union if they are unwilling to countenance no deal? It is nonsense.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I welcome this Government’s commitment to, and Ministers’ earlier responses on, the issues of public goods, the environment and animal welfare. Will my hon. Friend confirm that future agricultural policy will also include a commitment to high-quality food and food safety?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Government have been absolutely clear that we will not compromise our animal welfare and food safety standards in pursuit of a trade deal.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Hill farmers are essential to our landscape, food production, biodiversity and water management. Does the Minister realise that 91% of hill farm incomes come from the basic payment scheme, which his Government are planning to phase out over the next seven years? Will he therefore commit to a bespoke scheme or set of schemes to support upland farmers and other upland businesses?
George Eustice
Upland farmers, including sheep farmers, will be able to readily access many of the public goods listed in clause 1 of the Bill. Organisations such as the Uplands Alliance are very excited about the potential for a new scheme based on payment for the delivery of public goods.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Bew review is looking into the mechanisms for allocating farm funding across the UK post Brexit, but do the Government intend to launch reviews of the legislative and governance frameworks that may be necessary to maintain a level playing field for Welsh farmers in the UK’s future internal market?
George Eustice
There are two ways in which a UK framework can be delivered. First, it is important to recognise that agriculture is devolved. Although the Welsh Government have asked us to add a schedule to our Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, they also intend to introduce their own future legislation. There are provisions relating to compliance with WTO rules, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will also provide an approach to state aid rules.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
On Tuesday, I met members of the Irish Farmers’ Association—there were other things going on as well as the debate—and they made it very clear to me how vital it is to get a long-term customs arrangement in place as soon as possible. They say that that view is shared by farmers in Northern Ireland. What is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs doing to make sure that that happens?
George Eustice
As was made clear at the very start of this session, the Secretary of State is, as we speak, in dialogue with Members of this House to establish a consensus, so that we can indeed have a customs arrangement after March.
George Eustice
The DEFRA team, which includes me, supported the Prime Minister’s deal, because the deal that she brought forward was the way to most closely deliver the outcome of the referendum. That deal has now been rejected by this House, so of course we must consider all alternatives.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Protecting pollinators and the habitat is a priority for this Government, and our 2017 review of England’s 10-year national pollinator strategy highlights some positive progress. We have also simplified countryside stewardship and introduced new messages to help farmers put pollinators back into our landscapes through our pollinator package.
Matt Warman
Three thousand sugar beet farmers will drill their crop this year, 100 of whom will be in my constituency. Many of them rely on neonicotinoids, but it is vital that we rely on scientific evidence. Eleven EU countries have granted emergency authorisation. What are the Government doing to support sugar beet farmers?
George Eustice
I am sympathetic to the issue raised by sugar beet growers. Of course, sugar beet is a non-flowering crop, and it does have a particular issue with the peach potato aphid and the virus that goes with it. The growers did put forward an emergency application. The advice from our expert committee on pesticides was that it did not satisfy the criteria, but we invited them to make a subsequent application.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Department has not received any reports of foxes being killed in illegal ways, but I would not expect it to, as people are expected to report that to the local police. It is the Ministry of Justice that keeps the statistics on crime records.
Christian Matheson
The League Against Cruel Sports reports 32 kills last year, which is the bare minimum because it cannot monitor every hunt. May I suggest to Ministers that the reason why they do not collect these figures is that if they did, they would have to do something about enforcing the laws that already exist?
Dr Coffey
The Hunting Act 2004 makes it clear that, apart from certain exemptions, there is a ban on hunting with dogs. It is important that people take their evidence to the local police forces. I am aware of the incident in Cheshire through social media, and I understand that Cheshire police is investigating it. It is a crime, and it is up to the police force to investigate.
Mr Speaker
I call Richard Graham—not here. Where is the fella? It is a great shame—oh dear! Well, never mind, Hannah Bardell is here.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
As we leave the EU under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, retained EU law will ensure that we maintain our existing food and drinks standards.
Hannah Bardell
The Secretary of State has previously been reported as promising a genetic food revolution in the new year. In a statement, the National Farmers Union warned in the strongest possible terms against any lowering of food standards post Brexit. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister now put an end to this uncertainty, which the Secretary of State created? Will he accept an amendment to the Agriculture Bill to ensure that the standards of our high-quality produce are never lowered or diluted?
Mr Speaker
Order. I see that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is now scampering into the Chamber. He will have to catch his breath. The fella’s missed his question—dear oh dear! Anyway, it is better later than never. It is good to see the chappie, and I am glad that he is in good health.
George Eustice
We have been absolutely clear that we will not water down or dilute our approach to food standards, food safety or animal welfare in pursuit of a trade deal. Any future treaty establishing a trade deal would of course come back to this House under the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and would be subject to a ratification process by this House.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Is the Department considering improving and increasing standards post Brexit?
George Eustice
As we leave the European Union and establish national control in these areas, of course it is possible that we can improve our legislation in a number of areas where EU regulations do not quite work.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Codex Alimentarius sets the standards used by the World Trade Organisation. Reportedly, the UK hardly ever speaks up in defence of strong food safety labelling and marketing safeguards at those meetings. What confidence can we have that the UK Government will do so post Brexit?
George Eustice
I do not accept that caricature. Indeed, we worked very hard last year to ensure that a British official took the chairmanship of one of the important Codex committees dealing with food standards, and internationally we are always promoting animal welfare and food standards through organisations such as the OIE and Codex.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government recently published the resources and waste strategy, which sets out our plans to reduce plastic pollution. We have already consulted on banning straws, cotton buds and stirrers, and are consulting on extending the carrier bag charge. We will shortly be publishing our consultation on key reforms to existing packaging waste regulations, which will include a deposit refund scheme for drinks containers and increasing consistency in the recycling system.
Mrs Latham
The “Countryfile” programme on Sunday showed that farms use huge quantities of very thick plastic, which apparently can no longer be recycled and is being kept on airfields. How can the Government ensure that this product does not go into landfill?
Dr Coffey
It is possible to recycle plastic bales, but I am conscious that the secondary market may not be well established. With the reforms that we will shortly be consulting on, my hon. Friend will see that it will be in the interests of producers to ensure that materials are recyclable, otherwise it will cost them more.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I recently visited Canning Street Primary School in my constituency, where the children presented to me their “Keep Benwell Clean” campaign, because they are tired of walking to school through rivers of plastic. Will the Minister accept my invitation to visit the school and explain to the children there why their environment has to be polluted in this way, and what she and local authorities can do to change that?
Dr Coffey
I commend the children for being so concerned about plastic pollution and litter. I am sure that they are being champions in picking up litter where appropriate. That should be seen no longer as a punishment, but as a duty of civic service. Next time I am in Newcastle, which I anticipate will not be before 29 March, I will do my best to visit the children at that school.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Scotland led the UK in tackling the waste produced from single-use polythene bags, and the Scottish Government are now looking at a deposit return scheme for plastic bottles. Where such a scheme has been used, there have been recycling rates of up to 95%. Will the UK Government consider following suit with a plastic bottle recycling scheme?
Dr Coffey
We will shortly be publishing our proposals and the next steps towards introducing a deposit return scheme. I will be meeting Roseanna Cunningham again next month; she will have her plastics summit, and we will have a British-Irish Council meeting. Ideally we would like to work together on a UK scheme, and although we are conscious that that might not be possible, we will do what we can.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to progress plans for our departure from the EU, including preparing a comprehensive set of statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ensure we have a functioning statute book on day one. We are also progressing the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill, which have cleared Committee stage recently.
Diana Johnson
May I just say to the Minister that it is such a shame that his Government are not willing to rule out a no-deal scenario?
The EU pet travel scheme currently allows pet owners to travel between EU countries with their animals with minimal forward planning. That is especially important for guide dog owners. But the Government are now saying that, under a no-deal Brexit, guide dog owners will have to plan their travel at least four months in advance. This is totally unacceptable, so what are the Government doing to ensure that assistance dog owners do not see inferior travel arrangements in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
George Eustice
The guidance that the hon. Lady cites is obviously for a worst-case scenario, but the reality on pet travel schemes is that we would have the freedom to adopt a risk-based approach, and we would anticipate that the EU would do the same. We already have provisions with Norway, for instance, that enable a pet travel scheme to operate even though Norway is outside the European Union. We are in discussion with guide dog charities to address the issue.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
As I outlined to the House earlier, we recently published our resources and waste strategy. It is a key point that we need to tackle this serious and organised crime. We have already given the Environment Agency powers that it is using to do so, and indeed given powers to local councils, but there is more to do. We hope to bring forward future legislation to tackle outstanding issues.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
On Tuesday, the National Audit Office published a highly critical report on the Government’s monitoring of the natural environment. The report states that DEFRA
“has not…done enough to engage other parts of government with its approach”.
So what confidence can we have in the Secretary of State, who is clearly busy doing other things today, to deliver his promised green Brexit?
Dr Coffey
We are currently working on the metrics and targets, as set out in our 25-year environment plan, to have something that is sustainable going forward. It is also important to note that we have laid draft clauses of the environmental governance Bill. In them we refer to a policy statement, which will operate right across Government, embedding into what we do as a Government the need to ensure that we leave the environment in a better place than when we inherited it.
Sue Hayman
That is all very well, but what we need is not warm words. We get many, many warm words from this Department but very little real action, and we need action to protect our natural environment and to bear down on climate change. So what is actually happening in response to this report?
Dr Coffey
The report was published only yesterday, so we need to consider it and will then reply. Only this week, we launched the clean air strategy, which was recommended by the World Health Organisation as something for other countries around the world to follow. We are going through with a new Agriculture Bill and Fisheries Bill. We are preparing an environment Bill. These are all examples of action, which the House has asked for, on issues such as clean air. There is also what we are doing with our local nature recovery networks, and we are doing all sorts of things to try to improve biodiversity. The hon. Lady will be aware of our commitment to make sure that we achieve a target of 30% marine protected areas around the world by 2030, and we will be launching our final decision on marine conservation zones shortly. So frankly, this Government are acting to make the environment a better place.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Dr Coffey
It really matters that we work with local authorities to make sure that we improve air quality as quickly as possible. There are broader issues with particulate matter and similar, but we are still behind on nitrogen dioxide. The Greater Manchester area is late in presenting its plan to the Department, and we are continuing to work with it. Where there are those sorts of measures—not a congestion zone but a charging zone for more polluting vehicles—we will work on, and try to fund in the best way we can, the measures needed to mitigate that.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
As I have said in reply to earlier questions, we are working very hard to ensure that there is a deal. We want to work with all parties to do that. I was impressed when I met businesses in Scotland with the Food and Drink Federation Scotland. We need to take these steps, and I understand where the company is coming from on those issues.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
George Eustice
It was a real pleasure to meet my hon. Friend and a number of his constituents. We will give careful consideration to the amendments tabled to the Bill on Report and also to representations from organisations such as the NFU. The Rural Payments Agency has made significant improvement this year to the delivery of payments under the basic payment scheme, with 94% being paid by the end of December.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
The Hunting Act is already tightly drawn, and there has been a mixture of successful and unsuccessful prosecutions so far. It really matters that the police have the evidence presented to them, so that they can make a stronger case to the Crown Prosecution Service to tackle illegal hunting, which we all deplore.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Thank you very much for calling me, Mr Speaker.
One of the most exciting developments of recent times has been the announcement from the University of Manchester of a way of desalinating water through graphene sieves, which can turn it into drinking water. That has huge implications around the world. Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest possible benefits is the decrease in the number of water bottles, which so often find their way into the marine ecosystem?
Dr Coffey
I also saw that interesting announcement by the University of Manchester, which just shows the benefits of this Government having invested in the university to develop graphene. There are a number of ways in which we can try to reduce the impact of plastics, and we will continue to support water companies in their long-term plans, including on desalination.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Yet another report has been published this morning—this time in The Lancet—highlighting the damage that our food systems are doing to not only public health, with 11 million avoidable deaths, but the climate. I have been banging on about this for more than 10 years in this place. Is there any chance that the Government will ever listen to these reports?
George Eustice
It was a pleasure to have the hon. Lady on the Agriculture Bill Committee, where she raised some of those issues. In particular, we discussed the impact of imported soya on our environment and the steps we are taking to reduce that.
Mr Speaker
“Banging on” in this place tends to be a prerequisite of achieving anything. It is the colloquial version of my “persistence pays” principle.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
Would a Minister be willing to meet me to discuss banning the use of bolt guns as a method of putting down greyhounds that are no longer used in the racing industry?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
We need to tackle in a humane way however animals are put down, whether they are wildlife, domestic animals or racing animals. I am sure that a Minister will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
City of York Council is planning to develop the land adjacent to Askham bog, which is a site of special scientific interest. What discussions has the Minister had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about development next to SSSIs?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady will be aware that SSSIs have an exceptionally high protection status under the national planning policy framework, which was updated last year. It is really important that these matters are considered carefully and that such development is avoided, but it will come down to a local decision for the local planning authority.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Minister has talked about amendments to the Agriculture Bill. Will he and the Secretary of State really look at those amendments, and especially those that maintain high standards for imported foods, so that we do not put our own farmers out of business?
George Eustice
I can reassure my hon. Friend that I have already looked closely at some of the interesting amendments he has tabled.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Last week, Heathrow announced that it wanted another 25,000 flights a year through the airport, irrespective of runway 3’s development. What advice has DEFRA given the Department for Transport on the noise and air quality implications of that unwelcome development?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
As with any development, an environmental impact assessment will be needed to cover those particular items, which will need to be considered with what is regarded as illegal.
Mr Sheerman
“Oh, very well”, Mr Speaker? I am actually going to ask a topical question, unlike some of our colleagues.
May I remind the ministerial team that until we came under European regulation, we were the dirty person of Europe? We filled our seas with sewage, and we buried our waste in holes in the ground. Did the Minister see the wonderful BBC programme only last Sunday showing the real curse of agricultural plastic waste, which we are doing very little about? Will she and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food get together with others, on an all-party basis, to try to clean up the environment and get a good deal from Europe?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
That was nearly as long as a speech in an Adjournment debate, but the last one of those that the hon. Gentleman secured for me to respond to was about the circular economy of left-over paint, and he did not even show up for that.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, I would say that he should read the resources and waste strategy. I have already answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham): I said that we are working on this. We need to work with farmers to make sure there is a secondary market for that sort of plastic bale.
Mr Speaker
I do not know whether the Minister managed to see the programme, but I dare say it is available on catch-up TV.
Chi Onwurah
At the last EFRA questions, the Secretary of State was in his place and he was typically effusive in his praise for the glorious north-eastern countryside that so many of my constituents enjoy. However, he refused to say how he would protect small-scale farmers, on whom the beauty and variety of our landscape depend, from the massive American agro-industrial machine. Will the Minister now set out his red lines to protect our landscape post Brexit?
George Eustice
Clause 1 of the Agriculture Bill makes explicit provision to support and incentivise our landscapes and countryside to help some of those smaller farmers. The modelling that has been done suggests that the issue is not actually all about size: some of our smaller family farms are technically the most proficient.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The Church of England continues to suffer thefts of metal and other items of historical and architectural interest from its churches. The Archbishop’s Council conducted an inquiry into this, and the trend appears to be gradually moving from east to west and from south to north. I encourage my hon. Friend to look at the Church of England website for ways of protecting his churches more successfully.
Alex Burghart
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. We are blessed with a great many historic churches in Brentwood and Ongar; too often, they have to be kept locked for very long periods of the week, making them inaccessible to the public. What conversations has she or the Government had with Historic England and the police to ensure that more of our historic churches can be open to the people who wish to use them?
Dame Caroline Spelman
My hon. Friend has a real gem in the form of a beautiful Anglo-Saxon church— St Andrews, Greensted—which, despite the fact that it does not have a metal roof, has suffered these kind of thefts. At the end of last year, the Church of England participated in a Historic England review called Operation Crucible as part of the strategy against metal theft. There is no question but that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 needs to be tightened to recognise illegitimate businesses, which often have their own forges and furnaces and melt down the metal before it even reaches scrap dealers’ yards.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the UK, there are some 340 important historic churches. National lottery funding has made money available to some of them, but there is certainly a shortfall in funds. May I ask the right hon. Lady whether other funding avenues could be made available for preservation works?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. The Church would direct him, his churches and others with historical churches facing the threat of metal theft, towards a Home Office panel for grants to protect religious buildings from hate crimes. Some churches have been recipients of these grants.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Sadly, many of our most beautiful churches are now closed for worship and have been declared redundant. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that Church Commissioners will continue to do all they can to preserve those beautiful buildings?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Church of England opens as many churches as it closes—there is often a misunderstanding about that—and whether people come to worship or to visit the historical artefacts, increasing footfall through churches is a deterrent to crime and theft. I encourage all hon. Members with beautiful churches in their communities to use them or lose them, and to encourage people to go into them so that we keep them open and keep the criminals out.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What is the Church of England doing to keep historic church bells ringing in historic church buildings?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Church of England succeeded in producing a magnificent peal of bells to mark the centenary of the Armistice, and I am sure that churches in the constituencies of many hon. Members took part. Grants are available to restore belfries and bells, and a great effort was made to make churches ready for that historic moment in our nation’s history.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)
The Electoral Commission has ongoing dialogue with the Minister for the Constitution, and it has raised the need for a significant increase to its current maximum fine of £20,000. That will ensure that sanctions are proportionate and provide a genuine deterrent.
Alan Brown
We have heard about dark money being involved in elections and the Brexit vote, including the controversial £435,000 donation channelled via the Scottish Tory candidate, Richard Cook, and the Constitutional Research Council to the Democratic Unionist party. The source of that donation is still unclear. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) has written to the Electoral Commission to ask for due diligence on that case to be published. Can the hon. Lady advise when that will happen?
Bridget Phillipson
In its recent report on digital campaigning, the Electoral Commission recommended greater transparency around the source of such donations, and proposals have been set out. I am sure that officials from the commission will be happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend.
Gavin Newlands
With respect to the hon. Lady, the Labour party was fined a record amount for failing to declare donations during the 2017 general election. The current shambolic state of affairs in this place means that even if an election is not probable, it is at least possible. I heard the hon. Lady’s answer about increasing fines, but may we have a debate about increasing such fines much higher than £20,000? In that way, political parties would be generally dissuaded from taking such action as it would exceed the cost of doing business.
Bridget Phillipson
The Electoral Commission has repeatedly warned that the ability to fine campaigners a maximum of only £20,000 could increasingly be seen as the cost of doing business, and it continues to urge the Government to introduce legislation to strengthen its sanctioning powers for future electoral events.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Transparency in printed literature is partly ensured by the necessity of having an imprint. In my recent report for the Centre for Policy Studies, I argue that digital literature should also have an imprint. Does the Electoral Commission agree?
Bridget Phillipson
The Electoral Commission has called for imprints to follow for digital material as they would for printed material. I am sure that officials from the commission will be happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman, and we welcome any steps that he can take to urge the Government to take further action in that area.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Our electoral integrity is so important: when people vote we must ensure that they are exactly who they say they are. Since 2003 Northern Ireland has had photographic identification. What does the Electoral Commission feel about strengthening the situation as regards voter integrity?
Bridget Phillipson
The commission completed independent evaluation of the May 2018 voter ID pilot trials, and it published details on that analysis and the background data in July 2018. It found that the trials worked well, but it highlighted the need for more evidence in that area. As 3.5 million electors may not have the type of identification required, the commission continues to recommend that electors should be able to apply for a voter card free of charge, as is the case in Northern Ireland.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Bridget Phillipson
The commission has the expertise, experience and a proven track record of delivering well-run elections and referendums at short notice. It maintains contingency plans to ensure it has made all appropriate preparations to deliver a referendum, should there be one.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
I do realise that the grouping will make this sound rather like Foreign Office questions for Christianity—but then, the Anglican Communion is the third largest global organisation in the world, after the United Nations and the Catholic Church.
The Church of England has regular discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on freedom of religion and belief. I am pleased to announce to the House that my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, invited the Bishop of Truro, before Christmas, to lead an independent review of UK Government support for persecuted Christians.
Jeremy Lefroy
The number of Members who attended the meeting in the House yesterday about the Open Doors report shows just what huge interest there is in this issue. It was very disturbing to hear about the significant increase in the persecution of Christians, and indeed of people of other faiths, in the past year or two. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that as the report is compiled, the bishop will talk with as many Members as possible? We hear from our constituents and from around the world about individual cases of persecution.
Dame Caroline Spelman
I am delighted to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I, too, was really shocked by the report presented in Parliament yesterday, which shows that 40 countries out of the 50 on the Open Doors watch list are places where Christians experience very high or extreme levels of persecution. I shall go from this place to a meeting at the Foreign Office with the Foreign Secretary, as well as the bishop, and I will make that request directly to him.
Henry Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) in welcoming the Open Doors “World Watch List” report, launched here in Parliament yesterday.
With regard to Commonwealth countries on the list, we heard, for example, some very harrowing reports of abuse against Christian communities in Nigeria. What effort can the Commonwealth side of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office make in helping to mitigate such persecution?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Nigeria is high up the Open Doors watch list of countries where Christians suffer persecution. I am sorry to say that in the past year 3,731 Christians were reported killed by the activity of extremists in Nigeria. As it is a former dependency of the United Kingdom, the Government ought to have some way of having greater influence. I know that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is knowledgeable about Nigeria, uses every endeavour to bring pressure on the Government of Nigeria to better protect the Christians in their country.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the willingness of International Development and Foreign Office Ministers to actually do something about the persecution of Christians and put it at the top of their priorities?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I am delighted to be able to tell the House that since the last set of Church Commissioners questions, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and I have paid a joint visit to a Minister of State at the Foreign Office to impress on him the importance of officials in the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and other Government Departments, such as the Home Office, taking up the course for a better understanding of religious literacy. We were given assurances by the Minister that this would be impressed on officials.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answers thus far. One area of the world where persecution is at its highest is Pakistan, where there have been a number of high-profile cases. What is the Church doing to combat these terrible attacks on Christians, who just want to celebrate their religion?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Pakistan is very high up on the Open Doors watch list of countries where Christians suffer persecution. I am sure that like me, my hon. Friend will have heard the case of Asia Bibi raised with the Prime Minister yesterday in the House. It is important not only that we look for a solution for her and her family that assures her protection, but that we remember that what we do on behalf of Christians in other countries can impact others around the world in the same way. The persecution of Christians in Pakistan is high on our agenda.
Kevin Foster
As has already been mentioned, yesterday saw the launch of the Open Doors “World Watch List 2019” here in Parliament. Can my right hon. Friend advise me of what use the Church of England makes of the analysis of the trends in the persecution of Christians across the globe in its discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Obviously the watch list is a useful guide to where the focus needs to be. The bishops take special interest in particular countries that are high up on that watch list. Bishops regularly pay visits to countries where Christians are persecuted. In fact, the bishop responsible for the plight of Christians in the middle east and Palestine is currently paying his regular annual visit to look at the decimation of the Christians in that region.
Diana Johnson
I was interested to hear that the right hon. Lady is about to meet the Secretary of State. He wrote over Christmas in The Daily Telegraph:
“It is not in our national character to turn a blind eye to suffering”,
and that the issue is about
“our deeds as well as our words.”
Will the right hon. Lady say something about the deeds she would like to see from the Foreign Secretary?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Foreign Secretary has acted by bringing in a bishop—an independent person—to review the work of the Foreign Office in relation to the persecution of Christians abroad. Three areas will be assessed: the level of interaction between Churches and organisations overseas with British or foreign diplomatic missions in the protection of Christians; the experience of staff at the FCO, the Department for International Development and the Home Office, who may have been on the receiving end of approaches from Churches and other organisations seeking help for persecuted Christians; and the feedback of international organisations on British activities and an assessment of the approaches of other countries’ diplomatic missions to the persecution of Christians.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)
The Commission has had no discussions on the costs of installing an electronic voting system in the Chamber. Its responsibility in this matter is limited to the financial or staffing implications of any change to the present system, were a change agreed by the House. If the House agreed to pursue electronic working, further work by the House service in conjunction with the digital service would be needed to accurately identify the investment, planning and development required to deliver electronic voting.
Patrick Grady
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the answer. I accept that a change has to be a decision of the House, but the reality is that this is not just about democracy anymore; it is about health and safety. Six hundred Members trying to get through the Lobby the other night was an incredibly worrying situation: if Mr Speaker had called for the doors to be closed, it would not have been physically possible for the Doorkeepers to do so. There was claustrophobia, and we know the issues of Members with health challenges and Members who are pregnant. The House of Commons Commission needs to consider the issue from the perspective of safety in the workplace environment, with democratic considerations to one side.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for their questions—I think electronic voting will be my specialist subject on “Mastermind”. He has come up with a new angle, and I support the point he makes. Members in the packed Division Lobby when the Government were defeated very heavily will have noticed that the congestion was significant, and there were risks associated with that.
On the back of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I will ask the authorities to look at doing a health and safety risk assessment. As he will know, and as I have stated previously, if he wants to pursue the matter—I understand that he has perhaps not yet done so—he needs to ask the Procedure Committee to look at the whole subject of electronic voting.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The most recent figures published by the Church of England show that in 2017 the Church conducted 41,000 marriages and services of prayer and dedication. The church wedding is affordable: at less than £500, the cost of a wedding in church is not the main part of what it costs to get married. Free of charge, the clergy offer advice to help tailor the ceremony for the couple and, perhaps most importantly, to prepare them for their lives together.
Fiona Bruce
Church wedding fees can put some couples off marrying in church. Will the right hon. my Friend commend the excellent initiative led by my own minister, Mike Smith, vicar of St John’s, Hartford? Along with volunteers from the church, he has put together a wedding package for three couples consisting of a church wedding, a photographer, flowers, cake, a reception, and even wedding dress alterations, all for £1,000. Is that not a model that other churches could follow?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I think it is an excellent model. As one with children of marriageable age, I only wish we lived in the diocese that is making the offer, but perhaps it will catch on. I sincerely hope it will.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
We availed ourselves of the opportunity to have our children baptised in St Mary’s Undercroft, and our daughters were married at St Margaret’s, Westminster. Are those facilities well known, and are they well used? It is a great tradition. Are Members of Parliament aware of the facilities available to them, and do they use them?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The hon. Gentleman has done the House a service in reminding all colleagues that that opportunity is open to them. I know that many Members have experienced wonderful family occasions. However, in my capacity as Chairman of the Joint Committee on the draft Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, I should warn colleagues that we shall need to look very carefully at what facilities will remain available while the House is being restored.
Business of the House
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 21 January—Remaining stages of the Healthcare (International) Arrangements Bill.
Tuesday 22 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill.
Wednesday 23 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Tenant Fees Bill, followed by a motion relating to private Members’ Bills.
Thursday 24 January—A general debate on Holocaust Memorial Day 2019, followed by a debate on a motion relating to appropriate ME treatment. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 25 January—The House will not be sitting.
I can confirm to the House that a statement and a motion on the Government’s next steps under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will be tabled on Monday. A full day’s debate on the motion will take place on Tuesday 29 January, subject to the agreement of the House.
Mr Speaker,
“Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That’s why we call it the present.”
Let me say, on the eve of A.A. Milne’s birthday, that that is one of my favourite quotes from “Winnie-the-Pooh”—and, as Eeyore said:
“It never hurts to keep looking for sunshine.”
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, a very happy birthday for Saturday?
Finally, I leave the House with an uplifting and rather wise thought from “Winnie-the-Pooh”:
“If the person you are talking to doesn’t appear to be listening, be patient. It may simply be that he has a small piece of fluff in his ear.”
Mr Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House for her birthday wishes. I am looking forward to the occasion, although probably not quite as much as when I was about to be 15 rather than 56—but there you go.
Valerie Vaz
May I associate myself with the Leader of the House’s good wishes to you, Mr Speaker? I am not quite sure about the bit about the fluff in the ear. I do not know whether she suspects that you are not listening to what she says.
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week. I am pleased that she said that the Prime Minister would make a statement on Monday. The Prime Minister said that the motion would be amendable. Can the Leader of the House confirm that it will be, and can she also confirm what the Government Chief Whip said when he jumped up to the Dispatch Box—he said that 90 minutes was not enough to debate such an important issue and that the Government would provide reasonable time to hold the debate and vote by 30 January?
This is the first Government to be held in contempt of Parliament. The Prime Minister has had a vote of no confidence from within her own party. There was a vote of no confidence in the Government yesterday, which the Government won because they have a confidence and supply agreement. Yet again, however, a record was broken: 432 hon. and right hon. Members voted against the Prime Minister’s deal. That was the biggest defeat of a Government in history.
The Leader of the House said in an interview on BBC Radio 4:
“The Government has been collaborating across the House ever since the beginning of this Parliament.”
Can she say with whom? The Leader of the House also said that the Prime Minister will be “speaking with senior parliamentarians”. Can she say with whom—can she publish a list of those favoured ones, or is this another case of divide and rule? The Leader of the House will note that the House voted against a no-deal scenario. That must be off the table, so could she confirm that that is off the table in any starting point for discussions?
This Opposition and Parliament have been working on behalf of the people. Pressure from Her Majesty’s Opposition led to a meaningful vote, a term coined by the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), and it took a Humble Address for Parliament to be given the impact assessments.
How can we have confidence in the referendum when the donor of the largest political donation in history is being investigated by the National Crime Agency? The leave campaign has been found to have broken electoral law, whistleblowers and journalists have raised alarms about the legality of the campaign, and the previous Government said no analysis of the impact should be given out by our independent civil service.
Yes, the people have voted, but it is our job as elected representatives to look at the evidence of the impact on the country, and not rely on the campaign rhetoric, which we now know to be based on falsehoods. We must rely on the evidence and the facts. So can the Leader of the House confirm whether she will move the business motion to extend article 50 in time? I know friends of the Leader of the House have said she might resign if she had to do that.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has asked the DExEU Minister to explain why the Government thought it appropriate as a matter of law to proceed under regulation 32, for reasons of urgency, extreme urgency and unforeseeable events, when they handed the contract of £14 million to Seaborne Freight, a company with no ships, no ports and no employees. Can the Leader of the House publish a list of all the contracts that have been awarded under this regulation by any Government Department?
As of last Friday, 73% of the time available for the Government to lay their Brexit statutory instruments has elapsed, but only 51% of SIs have been laid. A previous shadow Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Lord Cunningham, said in the House of Lords that there is a Brexit SI that is 630 pages long, 2.54 kg in weight and includes 11 disparate subjects. The Government are clearly doing all they can to avoid proper scrutiny. Baroness Smith, shadow Leader of the Lords, says that she holds both of them in both hands so she does not have to go to the gym. Can the Leader of the House update the House on the progress of the Brexit SIs that need to be laid before the UK exits the EU?
In yesterday’s confidence vote debate the Prime Minister said:
“when you have worked hard all your life, you will get a good pension and security and dignity in your old age”.
Not if you are a WASPI woman, and not if you are a couple where only one of you is over pensionable age, because a written statement on Monday showed that there would be a £7,000 pension cut for the poorest elderly couples. The Prime Minister said:
“where growing up you will get the best possible education, not because your parents can afford to pay for it but because that is what every local school provides”.
Not according to new analysis by the House of Commons Library, showing that total education spending, including spending on schools and colleges, in the UK has fallen by over £7 billion in real terms since 2010. The Prime Minister said:
“where, when you have children of your own, you will be able to rely on our world-class NHS”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 1185.]
But not if you are on NHS waiting lists, which have grown to 4.3 million. The number of people waiting longer than two months for cancer treatment has almost doubled since 2010 and £7 billion has been cut from adult social care since 2010, leaving 1.4 million elderly and vulnerable people without care and support. The Prime Minister needs to come to the House and correct the record. It is no wonder that, in his speech, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs focused on the Leader of the Opposition rather than on confidence in his own Government.
May I also ask the Leader of the House if she will in principle talk to the usual channels about proxy voting? I do not want to discuss individual cases, just the principle of proxy voting. What is the timetable for coming back to the House and ensuring that is put in place?
The Leader of the House mentioned the Holocaust Memorial Day debate. The book will be available to sign next week; it was opened this week. On Monday, it is Martin Luther King Day, whose words we must remember:
“We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all”.
I hope that we all heed those words as we work towards tolerance, mutual respect, justice and opportunity and as we work to find a solution.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her various comments. I can confirm that the debate on Tuesday 29 January will not be limited to 90 minutes. The Government will ensure that sufficient time is available so the House can fully consider the matter for the whole day. The arrangements for the debate are subject to the House agreeing those arrangements, and it will be brought forward as a business of the House motion, which will be amendable and debatable.
The hon. Lady asks about my claim that there have been discussions across the House. She will appreciate that the Government have brought forward 46 Bills, 33 of which have received Royal Assent, and that in a hung Parliament there is considerable collaboration. Nearly 1,500 amendments were tabled to the EU withdrawal Bill, and on many of them the Government sought to do cross-party deals to ensure we could get the business through. By definition, given that 33 Bills have received Royal Assent, there has been a great deal of cross-party collaboration. It is important that she accepts that. Those are the facts. That is the truth of the matter.
The hon. Lady asks what the position is on a no-deal Brexit. She will be aware that, Parliament having passed the EU withdrawal Act, the legal default is that the UK will leave the EU on 29 March and, if a deal has not been voted for, it will be with no deal, unless alternative arrangements are put in place.
The hon. Lady says that the people have spoken and she is absolutely right—the people did speak. She then suggested it is up to Members of Parliament to decide what we do in response. I would slightly disagree with her. The people have spoken and it is our job to fulfil that, in line with the requirements of the people. This House is a servant of the people of this country—the entire United Kingdom.
The hon. Lady asks about progress on Brexit SIs. She will appreciate we have gone further than any previous Government in being open and transparent about the plans for secondary legislation. I remain confident that all required statutory instruments that need to be will be brought forward in time for exit day. I have recently exchanged letters with the Chairman of the sifting Committee to clarify some of the affirmative SIs that need to be brought forward in Committee. More than 300 Brexit SIs have now been laid, which is more than half the SIs we anticipate will be required by exit day and, as I say, we remain confident.
The hon. Lady makes various assertions about what the Prime Minister said. I gently say that from the Dispatch Box the hon. Lady could welcome, as I do, the fact that the economy is 18% bigger than it was in 2010 and has grown for eight consecutive years, that wages have outstripped inflation for eight consecutive months, and that median household incomes are up by £1,400 in real terms since 2010. She should celebrate the fact that more people are in work than ever before, that wages are growing at their fastest rate for a decade, that 1.9 million more children are being taught in good or outstanding schools than in 2010 and that this Government have committed a bigger investment in the NHS than ever before in its entire history. She should celebrate those things, but I fear she does not.
The hon. Lady made a point about proxy voting. It is a serious point, and the whole House knows my view. It is vital that families get the opportunity to spend time with their new babies. I will be bringing forward a motion as soon as I can on this subject. As all hon. Members will appreciate, there are no clear-cut views—for example, on how far it should extend and to what sort of motions it should apply—but I have been consulting broadly on the matter, and I hope to bring that forward as soon as possible.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on laws governing local authority employees standing in parliamentary elections? At the moment, they are banned from standing for the authority for which they work but can stand in parliamentary elections. That may not be a problem for the House, but personally I think the law rather strange.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The present law excludes local council employees who hold a politically restricted post, as defined in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, from standing in both parliamentary and local authority elections. He may like to raise the matter with Cabinet Office Ministers, perhaps in an Adjournment debate, so that he can seek further information.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I wish you a happy birthday for Saturday from everyone on the SNP Benches? Perhaps you can get a game of tennis in if you get the chance. I also thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week.
Well, we are all still here! I congratulate the Leader of the House and her Government on winning the no-confidence vote last night. At least they can still win one vote, and the nation is grateful—or perhaps not. Amazingly, this is a Government who treat the biggest defeat in parliamentary history as a mere flesh wound. Like Monty Python’s Black Knight, they fight on, armless and legless, prepared to bite the nation into submission. With similar delusion, they fight on as though nothing has happened. The red lines remain in place, there is no sense that other options are being considered seriously, and the Government still believe that a little bit of tinkering around the edges of their deal will be enough to make everything all right. The Government need to start to get real about their position and demonstrate that they are prepared to take Tuesday’s defeat seriously. May we have a statement, to show good will towards the House, to say that the Government will stop the clock and ensure that no deal is taken off the table? That would be the best way to engage with the other parties in this House.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for clarifying the situation around the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday and the debate a week on Tuesday. However, the business statement did not cover the fact that, according to the amended business motion approved by the House relating to the meaningful vote, the Government have three days to bring forward that debate, so why is the debate coming seven days after the statement? Next week’s business is important, but the debate could be held next week. The clock is ticking, and we do not need to wait until Tuesday week. The Leader of the House did not quite confirm this to the shadow Leader of the House, so will she ensure that any motion is fully debatable and amendable and that all options will be considered?
Lastly, this has been raised previously, but we need to review the House’s appalling voting arrangements. Tuesday night was awful, with cramped conditions no better than a cattle wagon while Members of Parliament vote. What will have to happen before we decide to do something? Does somebody have to give birth in a Lobby before the matter is tackled seriously? This is the 21st century, and our voting arrangements should match the times in which we live. Get shot of these ridiculous voting arrangements.
Andrea Leadsom
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his insight and for his encouragement of electronic voting. I fear that there is no clear view on that and that it may even prove more controversial in this House than leaving the European Union, which is one of the extraordinary things about the Houses of Parliament. Nevertheless, I am always willing to talk to him about such things. Of course, when we decant from this place into temporary arrangements, it might be possible to trial different alternatives if the House wants to do so—[Hon. Members: “No!”] As the hon. Gentleman can hear, it is a controversial thought.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether no deal can be taken off the table, but he must surely appreciate that doing that and then stopping preparations for no deal would be a totally incompetent thing for a sensible Government to do. The Government must continue to prepare for all eventualities, including no deal. It is not possible to remove no deal from the table and still abide by the will of the people, as expressed in the referendum.
The hon. Gentleman asks about next week’s motion. I again confirm, as I thought I already had, that it is debatable, amendable and subject to agreement by this House, on a motion that will be tabled on Monday; the statement and motion will be tabled on Monday. I offer the hon. Gentleman a bit of advice from “Winnie-the-Pooh” that I have been dying to give him:
“You can’t stay in your corner of the Forest waiting for others to come to you. You have to go to them sometimes.”
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May we have an early debate on collective Cabinet responsibility and what it means in the current circumstances? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to lead that debate, so that she can explain to the House the frustration that we all feel on her behalf at having the 2017 Conservative party manifesto, which she supported on the “Today” programme this week, undermined by treacherous comments from our own Cabinet colleagues?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is really tempting me, but I shall resist. All my Cabinet colleagues are absolutely in agreement that we will deliver on the will of the people as expressed in the referendum of 2016. We will be leaving the European Union on 29 March. That remains Government policy and we will continue to prepare for all eventualities.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I add my personal good wishes to you, Mr Speaker, and wish you a happy birthday on Saturday. I hope Saturday also brings you three points from your game with Chelsea at the Emirates.
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing that next Thursday will be Backbench Business Committee business, with the Holocaust Memorial Day debate and a debate on appropriate treatment for myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME. That will free up the time in Westminster Hall that we had put aside for the Holocaust Memorial Day debate, and Westminster Hall will now host a debate on Home Office resourcing for policing and tackling knife crime, particularly in London, on that Thursday afternoon.
I really welcome the House’s debating Holocaust Memorial Day. Members might not be aware that I represent and live in the midst of a large orthodox Haredi Jewish community in Gateshead. They are my neighbours and friends. Many of them come from families that fled to Gateshead in the 1920s and the 1930s, and that is obviously something that hits home when we remember the Holocaust on that day. I also remind the Government that the Haredi Jewish community, being very orthodox and having its own particular way of living within its culture and creed, has been hit rather hard by the two-child limit on benefits. That is something that we should be aware of across this House, because that limit is having an impact on culturally religious communities.
The Leader of the House talks about the many things she believes the Government have done well, but I am afraid that in my constituency unemployment in December was 1,060 higher than in the same month in the previous year. Everything in the garden is not rosy everywhere.
Andrea Leadsom
I totally respect the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his remarks about the Jewish community in his constituency. I think all hon. Members appreciate the contribution that they make to our society. I would certainly encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can discuss the specific issues and problems.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for explaining when the Government’s motion will be debated. Will she be arranging the business of the House on that occasion in such a way that there will be an opportunity, if Mr Speaker selects a large number of amendments and if they are pressed to a vote, to vote on each of them sequentially?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the motion to agree how we proceed on the motion will itself be amendable and debatable, and what will take place will require the House’s agreement.
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
I should like to declare an interest. Some years ago, when we were in a minority Government, I was in our Whips Office. Since then, for some five years, I was either shadow Leader of the House or Leader of the House. I feel an old-fashioned sense of unease when I hear people exploring options that might lead to the Government reducing or losing their control of the business of the House. However, that is of course entirely unnecessary. It is within the remit of the Government, using their access to the Order Paper, to facilitate exploration of where the will of the House lies. I strongly urge the Leader of the House to consider and explore, in consultation with colleagues, ways in which the Government might do that in order to facilitate the House’s expression of its wishes—the Prime Minister says she wants it to come to a decision—rather than, as has perhaps inadvertently happened in the past, almost obstructing the expression of the will of the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. When the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) served as Leader of the House, she was such a good Leader of the House and so popular and respected on both sides that I recall from 20 years ago that when we feared from press reports that her role as Leader of the House was at risk, the right hon. Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Buckingham (John Bercow) all sprang to our feet during business questions to insist that she must remain in her place.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) for her suggestion. She will equally appreciate that when, under her Government, indicative voting was attempted on House of Lords reform, it did not come up with a clear solution—that is the other side of the argument. Nevertheless, I am grateful for her remarks and suggestions.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Following on from the previous question, the Procedure Committee met yesterday and we are holding an urgent inquiry on these issues and on the recent rulings from the Chair. May I encourage the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, to come to our Committee, if you are invited?
As the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) just said, there is a point about such precedents. The shadow Leader of the House hopes soon to be in government, and it would be quite a dangerous precedent if Back Benchers were given precedence over the Government in introducing business. These are major constitutional issues, and we should not play this on the hoof or approach it from our being pro-Brexit or anti-Brexit. We should try to come to some sort of consensus.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend’s final point is exactly right. There are some very serious issues about the way the House conducts its business and, indeed, about the way our democracy is managed, and we need to consider those very carefully and soberly, although I agree with you, Mr Speaker. I would not storm the Procedure Committee’s meeting uninvited but, if invited, I would of course be available to come along.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Transport for London is in the process of phasing out existing rolling stock on the Barking-Gospel Oak line, which runs through my constituency, but TfL has done it without making sure that new trains will be in place. That means we will have a few weeks, perhaps longer, in which there will not be any trains on one of the big commuter lines across north London. Even for TfL this is incompetence of a pretty high order. Can we have a debate on transport, and particularly trains, so I can get a few more things off my chest?
Andrea Leadsom
There will be many hon. and right hon. Members who completely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. The situation sounds appalling, and he might want to seek an urgent Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate, because many colleagues are frustrated about issues with rolling stock.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Many charities across the United Kingdom benefit from national lottery funding, including charities in my Angus constituency such as the Forfar Musical Society and the Brechin Photographic Society. I am hosting an event in my constituency on 22 February to show other charities the funding that is available. Can we have a debate in this place on the outstanding contribution of charities in our constituencies and on how they can access further support?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure many hon. Members would agree with my hon. Friend that many charities benefit from national lottery grants, and I commend her for suggesting a public meeting to spread the news about what is available. Last year, the Big Lottery Fund distributed more than 11,000 grants across the UK including, in her constituency of Angus, to charities as diverse as HOPE organic garden, Keptie Friends, the Brechin Photographic Society, the Forfar Musical Society and Strathmore rugby football club. Congratulations to all of them. I encourage my hon. Friend to seek a Westminster Hall debate at least, because I am sure many Members would like to participate in such a debate.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the deteriorating and serious situation in Zimbabwe: the internet was deliberately stopped by the Government for three days; roads, schools and banks are closed; hundreds of people have been arrested; and there is complete silence, as people cannot communicate with each other. Will she ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement? I have tried to get an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate, and I will continue to do so, but this is serious and we must not forget what is happening in that wonderful country.
Andrea Leadsom
I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern. We all had such high hopes for Zimbabwe’s recovery, and what is happening is very concerning. We have Foreign Office questions next Tuesday, and I encourage her to raise this directly with the Secretary of State then.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Every day, crime blights lives. Those just about managing in hard-pressed communities particularly suffer, as burglars steal prized possessions and trash homes; small shops are regularly burgled, with thieves making life a misery for the shopkeepers; and neighbours, through disorder and threats, spoil people’s peace. Yet we hear that the Government now plan to send fewer thieves and thugs to prison. That might appeal to bleeding-heart liberals who live gated lives in leafy enclaves and see things through the prism of privilege, but it will disadvantage the police, disempower magistrates and disappoint the public. A visit from Ministers will allow them to defend this perverse plan, say why they will not defend those who suffer and give Members a chance to give a voice to victims.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises an incredibly serious issue. He will be aware that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has just announced a debate in Westminster Hall next Thursday afternoon in which my right hon. Friend might like to take part. I agree with him that prisons are there to punish offenders and keep the public safe, but they must also help people to turn their lives around. There is a balance to be struck, but I am sure that the Government will continue to consider the issue carefully.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Many happy returns for when your birthday comes, Mr Speaker.
I make no apology for raising this issue yet again. I had long and successful treatment for claustrophobia shortly after I joined this House. On Tuesday night, I had to be assisted through the Lobby by a right hon. Member—he is not in his place, so I will not name him—because although I did not have a panic attack, I felt very uncomfortable. I know what a claustrophobia panic attack is like, because I have suffered such attacks in the past. I assure Members that I would have caused havoc in the Lobby had I had an attack on Tuesday night. I plead with the authorities, with the Chair of the Procedure Committee and anyone else who is listening to consider having a debate in which we can put forward these points, so that the House can really look at the health and safety issues involved in the nonsense that happened in the Lobby on Tuesday evening.
Andrea Leadsom
First, I am really sorry to hear about the experience that the hon. Lady had; that is not acceptable and I am happy to meet her to discuss what more we might be able to do. I do not think it necessarily means changing procedures, but there certainly could be other ways to facilitate her particular situation.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
May we have a debate on reducing waiting times? Is the Leader of the House aware that during a lifetime the average motorist will spend approximately six months waiting at red traffic lights? May we have a national audit of our use of traffic lights in this country to see how many of them can be safely turned off?
Andrea Leadsom
That could be a very popular debate indeed, and my right hon. Friend raises an important issue. Traffic is not only frustrating for motorists, but harmful to our economic prosperity. I can tell him that we have seen more than a quarter of a trillion pounds of infrastructure investment, public and private, since 2010. A huge amount of money is going into new road building, and trying to re-work towns and cities so that the traffic keeps flowing better. There is a long way to go. He might well want to seek a Backbench Business Committee debate on this subject.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. This week I received correspondence from Cardtronics, which is ending free-to-access ATMs in my and another three constituencies. We have had a Backbench Business debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) has a ten-minute rule Bill. May I urge the Leader of the House to work with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and to allow a debate in Government time on the subject of the ten-minute rule Bill, so that we can tackle the scourge of paid- for money?
Andrea Leadsom
I am extremely sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s point. It is really problematic that people are not able to access their own money because of charges that they simply cannot afford. This House has looked at the issue a number of times and I encourage her to raise it directly with Ministers at Treasury questions on 29 January.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. May we have an urgent statement on changes by Barclays bank to its charges for community groups? Previously, anyone with assets worth more than £100,000 would have free banking, but the bank is now going to subject charities and community groups with assets worth more than £100,000 to very expensive charges. That will have a devastating effect on charities in Harlow, such as the Harlow food bank and the Michael Roberts Charitable Trust. May we have an urgent statement from the Government and can we take action to deal with the issue?
Andrea Leadsom
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has raised this point. Charities should not be placed on the same commercial playing field as businesses, and it is right that the money they raise can be spent on their charitable work. The decision taken by the bank is disappointing. I am a big fan of bank account number portability and have campaigned for it in the past. I would, therefore, make a suggestion to charities in Harlow that are concerned about this: vote with your feet and switch your account to a provider that will provide free banking. I hope that the bank concerned will have heard my right hon. Friend’s question, and I suggest that he raises the issue again in an Adjournment debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
International Christian Concern has reported that Vietnamese Government officials arrested and threatened 33 Christians in Phá Lóm village last November. Police reportedly tried to force the Christians to abandon their faith and worship a statute of the Buddha instead. Four of the group were arrested and beaten after they refused to do so, and Government officials continued to harass Christians in several other raids throughout November and December. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on this very important issue?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a matter of great concern regarding the abuse of people for their faith, and he is right to do so. I encourage him to raise it directly at Foreign Office questions next week.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about the issue of making up this House’s rules on the hoof. There is a very strong case for a business of the House committee, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House supported in a Conservative manifesto some time ago.
The Leader of the House has referred to next week’s motion on private Members’ Bills. She, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and I signed a motion that would have provided extra days—one of which would have been this Friday—but it was blocked by the Labour Chief Whip. Does the Leader of the House still plan to give us those extra days, or is there going to be a reduction in their number?
Andrea Leadsom
I have announced that the House will have an opportunity next Wednesday to debate additional days for private Members’ Bills. I have listened carefully to representations made by colleagues, and I will table a motion ahead of that debate so that we can continue to make good progress on private Members’ Bills in this Session.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
On Sunday evening, 23-year-old Nicole Newman was killed crossing the road in Penge, and her eight-month-old baby remains in a critical condition in hospital. I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to join me in offering condolences to her family, including her partner Charlie. While there has been no suggestion that the driver was speeding, our council in Bromley has failed to implement 20 mph speed limits in residential areas, despite pressure from Labour councillors to do so. Can we please therefore have a debate in Government time on speed limits in residential areas?
Andrea Leadsom
May I first say that that is an absolute tragedy? I am sure that all hon. Members will want to send their deep condolences to the family. The hon. Lady raises a very important point about speed limits. She will be aware that it is possible for local authorities to lower or indeed raise limits where that is felt suitable. I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can discuss the details of this tragic case.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Staffordshire police, in order better to investigate and prosecute online child sexual exploitation, has taken on some world-leading software from Semantics 21, which was developed in my own Stafford constituency. This software has been sold around the world—in the United States, Canada, and Australia, and to police forces in Europe as well—yet it seems very difficult to get police forces in the UK, even those that would like to do it, to take it up. Will she see how we can have a debate or a statement on whether we can use world-leading software developed in the United Kingdom in UK police forces?
Andrea Leadsom
I commend my hon. Friend for raising the possibility of this software, and I absolutely agree that something that is created in the United Kingdom that saves police officers having to spend their time trawling through horrific images is a very good idea indeed. I encourage him to take it up directly with Home Office Ministers so that he can discuss with them what more can be done.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Yesterday, Ofsted Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman launched new guidelines for Ofsted. If adopted, the new proposals would mean that schools practising off-rolling would be punished by inspectors. I am glad to see that the proposals were welcomed by the Government, but will they provide a statement on how they intend to support schools with more resources to meet the new criteria?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very pleased to see that the hon. Lady has an Adjournment debate scheduled soon to discuss this directly with Ministers. She is extremely diligent in the way that she tackles this issue and she is right to do that. She will appreciate that Ofsted plays a critical role in our system and its inspection of schools, colleges and early-years providers has helped to drive up education standards right across the country. The Government are working closely with Ofsted as it develops its new framework, and will continue to do so to make sure that we keep raising standards while ensuring that the balance is right between improving school standards and protecting against exclusions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
May I join others, Mr Speaker, in wishing you a happy birthday for tomorrow, and, unusually for me, in hoping that you watch Arsenal win, particularly as they are playing Chelsea?
Across the country, a spate of local authorities is embarking on very dodgy financial deals. In particular, Harrow Council has wasted £25 million on a failed regeneration scheme and is trying to hush it up. Can we therefore have a debate in Government time on the limits on local authorities to borrow and invest in regeneration schemes?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear of my hon. Friend’s concern about this particular investment by his local council. I encourage him to take it up either in an Adjournment debate or, indeed, at Housing, Communities and Local Government questions on Monday 28 January.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Leader of the House on her note of whimsy as she opened proceedings today. It was much appreciated. A new harmony seems to be breaking out, which many of us, on all Benches, will welcome.
On a very serious point, as a Member of Parliament for West Yorkshire, I was deeply disappointed to see, yet again, police arrests of gangs suspected of grooming young girls and children. This is possibly the 14th town, city or urban area with such a case. Can we not have a debate on the need to look at the causes and what has been happening in our towns and cities so that we can really understand what has been going on and how we stop it?
Andrea Leadsom
I understand that the hon. Gentleman works with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) on a cross-party group that is looking into the issue. It is right that we do that and I commend him on trying to find a way forward. I encourage him to seek a Backbench Business Committee debate so that that discussion can take place directly with Ministers. It is incredibly important that we do all we can to find out what is causing this problem of grooming young children and that we put a stop to it as soon as possible.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
An NCP car park in the centre of Crawley has been sending motorists fines, even though it has not obtained the correct planning permission for signage. I seek assurances from the Government that the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) that is currently in the other place will receive Royal Assent at the earliest possible opportunity.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a point that concerns not just his constituents in Crawley, but many others around the country. Drivers expect NCP to play by the rules and erect clear signage, making them aware of any charges. The private Member’s Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) has gathered support across the House and with industry trade bodies, creating a single code of practice that applies to all private parking operators. This will be a significant step towards greater fairness, and I look forward to its swift passage through the Lords.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Can we have an urgent statement on the north Wales growth deal that was announced in the autumn Budget? This morning’s announcement by Hitachi concerning Wylfa power station takes away a £20 billion investment in north Wales and completely alters the premise on which the growth deal was introduced. We urgently need to discuss this, as it is a major infrastructure project not just for north Wales and north-west England, but right across the UK.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. I was a big fan of that project and am disappointed to see what is happening now. He will appreciate that there is a statement following business questions and I encourage him to take this up with Ministers then.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House bring forward a debate in Government time for the House to discuss enshrining in law the rights of the 3.2 million EU nationals living in the UK now so that, regardless of whether or not a deal can be finalised by 29 March, our great nation’s commitment to these EU citizens—our friends and neighbours—is absolute?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important issue. All EU citizens who have come to the UK to make their lives here and contribute to our economy and society are very welcome, and they will remain welcome under all circumstances, whether we leave the European Union with or without a deal.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The outstanding Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, in conjunction with our local health services and my own Rebalancing charity, are bringing lung scans to Aspley, Bilborough and Strelley this month, following our very successful roll-out in Bulwell last year that detected cancers and saved lives. Might we have a debate in Government time about the importance of lung health and the benefits of rolling out lung health screening across the country?
Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his constituents on their excellent and incredibly important work in lung screening. I agree with him about the importance of such screening. He will be pleased to know that the new NHS 10-year plan includes a much greater focus on early detection and prevention, with the aspiration of many more people surviving cancers in the future. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise these issues directly with Ministers.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Could we have a debate about local hospitals? This year is the 200th anniversary of Dr Gray’s Hospital in Elgin. Despite being the smallest district general hospital anywhere in Scotland, the 550 staff provide outstanding care for local constituents. Would the Leader of the House accept my invitation to visit Dr Gray’s to meet the local staff, who provide outstanding care in the hospital?
Andrea Leadsom
As ever, my hon. Friend is a strong voice for his constituents, and I congratulate Dr Gray’s hospital on its anniversary. I know that he has been working hard to support the “Keep MUM” campaign to reverse the downgrading of the maternity unit at the hospital—an issue that he has raised at business questions previously. I would love to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency if I can find a slot in my diary; he has raised so many fascinating stories about his constituency that I think it would be a truly interesting visit.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I have been shocked at times by the attitudes that are displayed in this House. When I was a Government Whip, I remember being particularly shocked by a Tory Opposition Whip who refused to nod through the Lobby a recently delivered mother—a nursing mother. I think that this week many of us in this House are ashamed of the position that one of our colleagues has been put in simply to register her vote on the most important thing that probably any of us will be voting on during our time in this place, whereby she had to put her health into second place in order to do that. I think that many of us feel ashamed. That is not the way, in 2019, that we should treat each other in any workplace. Because we will now be having a series of other very important votes, may I ask the Leader of the House when we will actually see the proposal for proxy voting implemented so that Members are not put in that position ever again?
Andrea Leadsom
May I say that I have the greatest regard for the hon. Lady? She raises very important issues in this place and she is right to do so. She is raising the issue of one of our colleagues who chose to come to the House to vote. The usual channels will all confirm, and indeed the Speaker confirmed yesterday, that a pair was offered. That is the normal arrangement for somebody who cannot be present. It was offered well in advance and that offer remains open to her. I myself am extremely concerned about the hon. Lady’s welfare and wish her all health and happiness with her new baby. I do personally wish that she would follow the advice of her doctors. I genuinely do not believe that any of her constituents would possibly require her to turn up here in a wheelchair when it was perfectly possible to have received what is the normal arrangement in this place for people with conditions—and there were others, with long-term health conditions, who were paired on that same day. I really do wish that she would accept that offer.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and the Leader of the House for what she has said. Of course, as we discovered last summer, it is possible for the credibility of the pairing system to be damaged, perhaps irreparably, when it is abused or dishonoured. Moreover, as hon. and right hon. Members are aware, the House has twice debated the matter of proxy voting in circumstances of baby leave, and on both occasions the will of the House in support of such a system was made clear. Therefore, it is imperative, following those two debates in February and September of last year, that effect is given to the will of the House. It would of course be intolerable—literally intolerable—if, for example, a Whips Office, because of its own opposition to such a change, were to frustrate the will of the House. That simply cannot happen, and I very much doubt that Members will be tolerant of it for any length of time. The House has spoken and change must happen. It is a lamentable failure of leadership thus far that it has not done so.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I do not mean to labour the point, Mr Speaker, but I think it utterly incredible that in our employment as Members of Parliament we are treated differently from anybody else across the UK or beyond. There is no other job anywhere where someone would be asked to, and put in the position where they have to, choose to come to work the day before they give birth or to delay the birth of their child. I am sorry, but I am fed up with hearing excuses from the Leader of the House and ridiculous arguments about not putting in place proxy voting, baby leave, and, frankly, electronic voting. We only need to look to Wales and Scotland, where we have Parliaments that have seats for every Member and electronic voting. For goodness’ sake, this is the 21st century—what are this Government doing? It is about time they sorted this out so that we can enjoy a proper status and be able to consider having children. I do not have any children but I may consider having some at some point, and I do not know how that would be manageable in the current circumstance.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments, and I am listening very carefully. She will appreciate that what happens in this place is a matter for Members. A number of Members have raised with me the need for those with long-term illnesses, family emergencies and so on to be accommodated, but I have heard from other Members that that would not command the support of the House. I am seeking to provide a solution that can command the support of the House.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) was able to be nodded through. If it was a matter of having her vote recorded—[Interruption.] Members are shaking their heads. The usual channels agreed that she could come to this place at any moment on that day and be nodded through, to have her vote recorded. On this occasion, until we have finalised the way forward, that is my strong recommendation. I hope that the hon. Lady will take medical advice and not come into the House unnecessarily.
Mr Speaker
I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) has had to raise this and that the Government Whips Office is blocking progress on this matter, but let us hope that some progress will be made before too long. [Interruption.] Well, that is the situation—that is the reality, and that is the evidence. It is very clear; there is no doubt about it.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Penblwydd hapus, Mr Speaker, as we say in Wales.
In 1991, 9 million prescriptions were written for antidepressants. By 2016, that figure had gone up to 65 million. In 2004, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommended and approved the science of mindfulness for the treatment of repeat episodes of depression. Can the Leader of the House guarantee a debate in Government time on why the use of antidepressants has shot up over that period, while mindfulness has just bubbled along?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I certainly was not aware of the shocking rise in the use of antidepressants. He will be aware that mindfulness courses are offered in this place. I have tried to attend one, but due to the busyness of this place, I have not managed to get there yet. I certainly agree that we could all do with some mindfulness at this time.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are investing significant sums in improving mental health and making good on the pledge for parity of esteem between physical and mental health. We will see many more people able to access talking therapies and the kind of support he is talking about, but I encourage him to seek a Backbench Business Committee debate, because I am sure that many Members would want to contribute to it.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
There is a great deal of ambiguity about state pensions for 1950s women, now that the legal challenge by the campaign group BackTo60 is in the High Court. Can the Leader of the House advise whether parliamentarians can continue to discuss and make representations in the House about this very important issue and, more importantly, whether the Government will respond?
Andrea Leadsom
I can assure the hon. Lady that Members can always continue to raise issues and concerns in this place. She will be aware that the Government do not comment on judicial reviews that are under way, due to the separation of powers. I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate, so that she and other Members can discuss, as we have on many an occasion, the real concerns about the WASPI women.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). On a slightly different point, I have a constituent who entered into two contracts relating to machinery for cosmetic laser treatment. The contract for the training and asset, neither of which were particularly effective, cost my constituent a great deal of money. In addition, great concern was expressed after the training about the value of it and whether it was in fact safe to carry out the procedure. Can we have a debate in Government time on the use of health equipment for cosmetic purposes and companies’ use of dual contracts to, in essence, entrap people to spend money on a product that does not appear to be worth it?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. We are all aware of stories of unnecessary procedures and the inappropriate use of so-called medical interventions. He is absolutely right to raise that, and I encourage him to seek either an Adjournment debate on the specific case he wants to raise, or perhaps a Westminster Hall debate so that hon. Members can contribute with their own experiences.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Leader of the House does not need mindfulness; she should just carry on reading “Winnie-the-Pooh”. For when she sends her card—signed, “Love, Andrea”—to you, Mr Speaker, I would remind her that when Piglet asked Pooh:
“How do you spell ‘love’?”,
he replied:
“You don’t spell it…you feel it.”
Even a bear of very little brain knows that this House wants to rule out a no-deal Brexit. When is the Leader of the House going to give us an opportunity to do just that?
Andrea Leadsom
I am just too tempted, Mr Speaker; you are going to love this. I say in response to the hon. Gentleman:
“Rivers know this: there is no hurry. We shall get there some day.”
On the hon. Gentleman’s point, a competent Government have to continue to prepare for all eventualities. That is just the reality.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Coventry’s year-long reign as the European city of sport is officially under way. Our city will use the year not only to promote and celebrate the benefits of sport and physical activity, but to act as a catalyst for a fitter, healthier and happier Coventry. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating my city on securing European city of sport status, and will she also arrange a debate in Government time on the positive impact that sport can have on individuals and the wider society?
Andrea Leadsom
First, I thoroughly congratulate all in Coventry on the fantastic start to their year as city of sport. We all wish them well. It is a brilliant role model for all of us who want to see more activity in schools. In our own lives, we should all get out there and do sporting activities when we can. I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising that in the Chamber, and I will certainly look at whether we can facilitate Government time for such a debate.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Bridge of Weir village post office in my constituency is run by the community for the community, but it is not recognised as a community post office. It is therefore unable to access the funds set aside to secure the future of village post offices, due to rules set by the Government on distance to retailers and other post offices. However, no other retailer is interested in taking on the franchise, and there is very limited public transport to the next village post office. May we have a debate on the importance of community post offices and the rules surrounding them, particularly in the light of many bank branches closing and people relying on post offices?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of community post offices. They do a fantastic job, and they are often the only retail outlet as well as the only financial services outlet. As he knows, the post office network has agreed to provide basic banking services for communities, which is absolutely vital. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate, so that he can raise his thoughts directly with a Minister.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Last April, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a children’s funeral fund in memory of my son, Martin. Nine months later, we have still not seen it. That means that nearly 3,000 families have had to pay to bury their children. In November, I and other Members from across this House wrote to the Prime Minister and asked for an update. We have not received a response. Will the Leader of the House advise me where else I can go to make sure that Martin’s fund becomes a reality?
Andrea Leadsom
May I once again commend the hon. Lady for her fantastic campaign, which has had such widespread support across the House? I will be very happy to chase up a response as soon as possible on her behalf.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
May we please have an urgent debate on the disposal of local authority public assets? We are seeing an industrial-scale sell-off. It is clear that certain local councils, such as local Warwick District Council, are entering into deals with private companies, such as Public Sector plc, without even going out to tender. Those companies are profiting greatly, as are the Guernsey-based private equity companies that are helping to finance the deals. I am extremely concerned that we are on the verge of a Carillion-style risk, given the concentration of these deals with one company such as PSP.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that concerning issue. Questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are on Monday 28 January, and I encourage him to raise the matter directly with Ministers.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Before 29 March, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must get through something like 80 statutory instruments, and the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill will come back on Report and Third Reading. The Leader of the House might be Superwoman, but how will she do that?
Andrea Leadsom
I am absolutely not Superwoman, but I consider the matter carefully on a regular basis—indeed, I consider daily the priorities for legislation and the time available. Obviously we are not flush with time, but I believe we have enough to get all our secondary legislation through, as well as the primary legislation that needs Royal Assent by departure date. I will continue to keep such matters under review, and they will require the co-operation and support of the House.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The National Police Air Service helicopter has been called out 1,044 times by Humberside police in the past year, and deployed only 593 times. May we have a debate in Government time about the need for and availability of shared policing resources, to ensure that areas such as Grimsby get the community safety they deserve?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important point, and it is vital that resources are shared appropriately when they can be, to ensure that all our citizens receive appropriate levels of support from our police and other emergency services. I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can raise the matter directly with Ministers.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House’s responsibilities for the restoration and renewal project mean that she has a great opportunity to shape one of the biggest public sector procurement exercises over the next generation. With that in mind, how will she ensure that once this palace is renewed, it is stuffed to the rafters with the best of British manufacturing? When it comes to ceramics—[Laughter.] Yes, I am predictable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and I would be more than happy to facilitate conversations between the ceramics industry and architects here to ensure that, whether for pipes, plates, teapots or tiles, Stoke-on-Trent has its place in the new palace.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman got a resoundingly popular response to that. Of course, there is a long way to go with the restoration and renewal of the palace. We have made good progress, and the legislation is now under joint scrutiny under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman). Once that has taken place, we can start considering procurement procedures. There is already a commitment to look carefully at maximising the use of UK producers as far as possible, and there will be plenty of opportunities for all sorts of small and medium-sized enterprises in our constituencies.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Ellis, who is the grandson of my constituent Eleanor Haining, has a rare and life-threatening brain disease—indeed, he has the only known case in the world with such early symptoms. As can be imagined, he needs a lot of specialist equipment to get him from home to hospital, and his family urgently need a larger car. The disability living allowance mobility component cannot be accessed until a child reaches three years of age, so may we have a Government statement to address that anomaly and say whether specific exemptions could be applied in such circumstances?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises a serious constituency issue, and if he would like to write to me with the details I will take it up with the Department for Work and Pensions on his behalf. I am sure that if he raises it with Ministers they will also be happy to deal with him directly.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House and everybody who has made it possible to debate knife crime next Thursday. This is a serious issue, and I believe that last week, on 9 January, there was a meeting of the serious violence taskforce. I will not stop saying that the Home Secretary should come to the Chamber to make a regular statement to the House about what is happening with respect to knife crime and other serious violence on our streets. Debates are fine, but we need regular statements. Will the Leader of the House speak to the Home Secretary about that so that we get regular updates? I think all Members of the House would appreciate that enormously.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman has raised this very serious issue on a number of occasions at business questions, and he is absolutely right to do so. He knows that I share his grave concern about what is happening on our streets. He is also aware that the serious violence strategy and taskforce, the Offensive Weapons Bill, and the various community projects to encourage young people away from an appalling life of crime, pain and death are a real focus for the Government. I can assure him that I will write to the Home Secretary following our exchange today and pass on his concerns.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the UK’s most common genetic disorder, haemochromatosis, following today’s report that it may be 20 times more common than was previously thought?
Andrea Leadsom
I too heard about that report, which was very concerning. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this matter in the House. I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can discuss it directly with Ministers.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
All the best for your birthday on Saturday, Mr Speaker. I do not know about you, but in my experience it is a very fine week to have a birthday, and this year has been more memorable than most.
It was a great pleasure last week to visit Members of the 277th Boys’ Brigade in my constituency, who attend each week at St Monica’s primary school in Milton. I presented them with badges for all their work during UK Parliament Week on the centenary of the Representation of the People Act 1918, which led to women’s suffrage. They did a lot of work on that, so it was great to present them with the badges.
Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate in Government time on the excellent work of youth organisations such as the Boys’ Brigade, which was founded in Glasgow by William Alexander Smith in 1883 at Woodside hall, just a small distance away from where the Boys’ Brigade in my constituency meets today? Today, the Boys’ Brigade has over 750,000 members in more than 60 countries around the world. That is a huge achievement and a huge opportunity. Will the Leader of the House consider calling a debate in Government time on that wonderful achievement?
Andrea Leadsom
First, may I congratulate the Boys’ Brigade in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency? It is the most amazing youth movement right across the world and it really is an example of what can be done to encourage young people to engage with the world around them, particularly during Parliament Week. Just last year, we celebrated 100 years since some women got the vote. Congratulations to everyone on their work. I do think there would be popular calls from hon. Members to discuss this issue, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to talk to the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it could facilitate such a debate.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Greater Manchester spatial framework is causing a great deal of anxiety in my constituency. The plan, with a Government-imposed housing target, will mean a net loss of green-belt land. At the same time, insufficient funding is in place to redevelop brownfield sites that the community is desperate to see redeveloped. How can it be right that landowners, through no positive action on their part, can be made millionaires overnight through a simple change in land use policy, when brownfield sites, which are desperate for funding from the Government, are being left to rot? How can that be a fair settlement for the community?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very serious point. We all recognise the urgent need for much, much more house building, so that more people can meet the aspiration of owning their own home or being in secure living accommodation. It is vital that we do that, but the way in which we do it is incredibly important. Local Government questions are on Monday 28 January, and I encourage him to raise that with Ministers then.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, may I, too, wish you a happy birthday on Saturday? It seems that all the best people are born in January, especially my mum. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That’s on the record now.
Chris Elmore
Indeed, Mr Speaker.
The Leader of the House will be aware of my ongoing work to try to tackle the impact of social media, especially cyber-bullying, on the mental health of young people. The inquiry I chaired has recently concluded and we hope to bring a report forward this spring. What is clear from the early findings, including from young people who have given reams of oral and written evidence, is that the Government need to do more to start to tackle the problems relating to the effect of social media on young people’s mental health. May we have a debate soon, so that we can debate these important issues and the Government can start responding to the very real problems that young people are facing across social media platforms?
Andrea Leadsom
I have something in common with the hon. Gentleman, as my mum also has her birthday in January—as of course does A. A. Milne, who has been the theme of today’s business questions. Indeed, A. A. Milne’s birthday is tomorrow.
The hon. Gentleman is raising a very serious point about the harm being done to young people’s mental health, not necessarily only by cyber-bullying and online trolling and abuse, but also by the overuse of social media, which militates against them having an outdoor life whereby people say, “Go outside and play if you’re bored.” A lot needs to be done not only by the social media giants, which have to come to the table and sort out some of the problems we have, but by society generally to make it less acceptable to spend hours and hours online instead of doing other things. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I pay tribute to him for doing so. I encourage him perhaps to seek a Westminster Hall debate so that all Members can share their experiences.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
May we have a debate on pension credit and universal credit? Will the Leader of the House say what justification there can be for forcing some older couples to claim universal credit instead of pension credit, thus cutting £7,000 from those low-income households?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have had quite a lot of urgent questions and statements on universal credit, and I hope he has taken the opportunity to raise the issue then. I reassure him that the Government are committed to ensuring that the roll-out of universal credit is fair. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already put in place some changes. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise a further issue, I encourage him perhaps to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise it directly with Ministers.
Nuclear Update
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement following Hitachi’s announcement this morning that it intends to suspend development of the proposed Wylfa nuclear power project, as well as work relating to Oldbury.
The economics of the energy market have changed significantly in recent years. The cost of renewable technologies such as offshore wind has fallen dramatically, to the point where they now require very little public subsidy and will soon require none. We have also seen a strengthening in the pipeline of projects coming forward, meaning that renewable energy may now be just as cheap, but also readily available.
As a result of the developments over the last eight years, we have a well-supplied electricity market. Our electricity margin forecast is more than 11% for this winter, having grown for each of the last five years. While that is good news for consumers as we strive to reduce carbon emissions at the lowest cost, that positive trend has not been true when it comes to new nuclear. Across the world, a combination of factors, including tighter safety regulations, has seen the cost of most new nuclear projects increase as the cost of alternatives has fallen and the cost of construction has risen. That has made the challenge of attracting private finance into projects more difficult than ever, with investors favouring other technologies that are less capital-intensive up front, quicker to build and less exposed to cost overruns.
As I made clear to the House in June, the Government continue to believe that a diversity of energy sources is the best way of delivering secure supply at the lowest cost and that nuclear has an important role to play in our future energy mix. In my June statement, I therefore reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to nuclear. I also announced that we would be entering into negotiations with Hitachi over its project at Wylfa. Given the financing challenges facing new nuclear projects, I made clear to the House that we would be considering a new approach to supporting Wylfa that included the potential for significant direct investment from the Government.
As I am sure the House will understand, while negotiations were ongoing the details were commercially sensitive, but following Hitachi’s announcement I can set out in more candid terms the support for the project that the Government were willing to offer. First, they were willing to consider taking a one-third equity stake in it, alongside investment from Hitachi, agencies of the Government of Japan, and other strategic partners. Secondly, they were willing to consider providing all the debt financing required for the completion of construction. Thirdly, they agreed to consider providing a contract for difference, with a strike price expected to be no more than £75 per MWh. I hope the House will agree that that is a significant and generous package of potential support, which goes beyond what any Government have been willing to consider in the past.
Despite that potential investment, and strong support from the Government of Japan, Hitachi reached the view that the project still posed too great a commercial challenge, particularly given its desire to deconsolidate it from its balance sheet and the likely level of return on its investment.
The Government continue to believe that nuclear has an important role to play, but, critically, it must represent good value for the taxpayer and the consumer. I believe that the package of support that we were prepared to consider was the limit of what could be justified in this instance. I was not prepared to ask the taxpayer to take on a larger share of the equity, as that would have meant taxpayers’ taking on the majority of construction risk, and the Government’s becoming the largest shareholder with responsibility for the delivery of a nuclear project. I also could not justify a strike price above £75 per MWh for this financing structure, given the declining costs of alternative technologies and the financial support and risk-sharing already on offer from the Government, which were not available for Hinkley Point C.
Let me reassure the House that Hitachi’s decision to suspend the current negotiations on the project was reached amicably between all parties once it became plain that it was not possible to agree a way forward. Hitachi has made clear that while it is suspending project development at this stage, it wishes to continue discussions with the Government on bringing forward new nuclear projects at both Wylfa and Oldbury, and we intend to work closely with it in the weeks and months ahead. We will also continue to strengthen our long-standing partnership with the Government of Japan on a range of civil nuclear matters; and, importantly, we will continue to champion the nuclear sector in north Wales, which is home to world-leading expertise in areas such as nuclear innovation and decommissioning and which offers ideal sites for the deployment of small modular reactors.
If new nuclear is to be successful in a more competitive energy market—I very much believe that it can be—it is clear that we need to consider a new approach to financing future projects, including those at Sizewell and Bradwell. Therefore, as I said initially in June, we are reviewing the viability of a regulated asset base model and assessing whether it can offer value for money for consumers and taxpayers. I can confirm that we intend to publish our assessment of that method by the summer at the latest.
Through our nuclear sector deal, we are exploring the possibility of working with the sector to put the UK at the forefront of various forms of nuclear innovation. We are looking into whether advanced nuclear technologies such as small modular reactors could be an important source of low-carbon energy in the future, and we are considering a proposal from a UK consortium led by Rolls-Royce that would result in a significant joint investment.
I began my statement by outlining the challenges that the nuclear industry faces as the energy market changes. I will set out a new approach to financing new nuclear in the planned energy White Paper in the summer. I know that the future of the nuclear sector is of great interest to many Members, and I will ensure that those on both sides of the House, and its Select Committees, have an opportunity to consider the proposals.
I understand the disappointment that the dedicated and expert staff at Wylfa and Oldbury will feel as a result of today’s announcement by Hitachi. New commercial nuclear investments around the world are experiencing the same challenges as new sources of power become cheaper and more abundant. Nuclear has an important role to play as part of a diverse energy mix, but it must be at a price that is fair to electricity bill payers and to taxpayers. We will work closely with Hitachi and the industry to ensure that we find the best means of financing these and other new nuclear projects.
Our commitment to Anglesey—with its nuclear, renewables and deep expertise, it is a real island of energy—will not be changed by this decision. I will work with the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), the Welsh Government and the local community to ensure that its renown is supported and strengthened, and I will do the same with my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall).
I pay tribute to the staff of Horizon and Hitachi and to my own officials, those in the Department for International Trade and our embassy in Japan, and those of the Government of Japan, who spent many months doing their utmost to support a financing package. I know that they left no stone unturned in seeking a viable commercial model for this investment, and I very much hope that their work and professionalism will lead to a successful partnership following this period of review. I commend this statement to the House.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but he must recognise that the Government’s new nuclear strategy, adopted by the Conservatives and spearheaded by their Liberal Democrat coalition partners in 2013, is now in complete meltdown. The Government have reacted far too slowly to ongoing concerns from nuclear partners, such as Hitachi’s UK nuclear arm Horizon, which have been raising concerns over funding mechanisms since purchasing the project from RWE and E.ON back in 2012. Today’s decision to withdraw from the Wylfa nuclear power plant lays a significant blow on our economy.
The company’s statement reads:
“Horizon Nuclear Power has today announced that it will suspend its UK nuclear development programme”.
That sounds very much like not only is Wylfa on the chopping block, but so, perhaps, are plans for Hitachi’s other nuclear project—the Oldbury nuclear power plant in Gloucestershire. The Secretary of State has stated that Hitachi wants to work on new projects at Wylfa and Oldbury. What does that mean in the light of the clear statement Horizon has made this morning?
Only two months ago, the Government’s lack of clarity over funding for new nuclear led Toshiba to withdraw from its new nuclear project in Moorside. With the three reactors expected at Moorside and two each in Wylfa and Oldbury, that makes a total of 9.2 GW of new nuclear energy that will not now be built. Can the Secretary of State tell us where he will find this power—not only through the next winter, but over the next 10 years?
The long-term coherence of the UK capacity arrangements is now significantly disrupted. With the capacity market also falling foul of legal challenge, these elements add up to a strategic energy sector that is now being grossly mishandled by this Government. Now that their nuclear plan has gone up in smoke what plan can the Secretary of State spell out to us for finding new backers for these projects? Given the apparent capacity constraint, is he intending to uprate the coming contracts for difference auction, removing the caps on capacity and funding that he has imposed to provide further opportunity to build new renewable energy capacity to replace what has been lost?
For this plant at Wylfa alone, Hitachi had planned to invest £16 billion. Does the Secretary of State have contingency plans, rather than warm words, that he can announce today for the economies of Anglesey and north Wales, where Wylfa was projected to create up to 10,000 jobs at peak periods of construction and 850 permanent jobs? For that matter, what about Moorside and the plant it lost two months ago? Government dithering leading to the cancellation of that plant has seriously undermined the UK’s energy security, its decarbonisation goals and the economy of Cumbria. The people of Moorside expected the plant, and roads, infrastructure and even apartment blocks had been built in preparation, all of which will now go to waste.
I come back the issue of Wylfa. Given that it is the Welsh economy that has lost £16 billion of inward investment, will the Secretary of State think about the £1.3 billion—less than a tenth of the price—required to build the Swansea tidal lagoon?
Given that energy is one of the sectors that creates the most carbon, today’s news deepens our profound concern about the Government’s ability to meet their own climate targets. The Labour party is proud to have announced our goal of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions before 2050 and we congratulate the Government on attempting to catch up with our green ambitions. But given that the clean growth plan was already falling short and the Government were already failing to meet those targets, can the Secretary of State give us some detail today on how he expects to meet UK carbon budgets in the light of today’s developments? Can he assure us he is not intending to replace the low-carbon power that has been lost with new fossil fuel plants?
Finally, there appears to be some confusion about what was and was not said about nuclear power when the Prime Minister met Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe last week. Did she raise Wylfa nuclear power station when she met the Japanese Prime Minister? It is an odd coincidence that this decision from Japan-based Hitachi has come so close to those meetings. Either they talked about the project and what was said was unsatisfactory, and the project was cancelled, or the Prime Minister did not think it worth mentioning, and it was still cancelled.
Confidence in the Government is a very live question today. The people of north Wales and Moorside have every reason to have none in this Administration.
Greg Clark
I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s points, but I will start by saying one thing about nuclear investment. I have been clear in maintaining my support and that of the Government for new nuclear, but, for investments of over 60 years, a degree of cross-party support is required for those commercial investments, which, as we have seen, are difficult to secure.
The hon. Gentleman expressed disappointment that the investment was being suspended, but he himself has said we do not need nuclear power. The Leader of the Opposition has said he is passionately opposed to nuclear power and nuclear weapons in equal measure, the shadow Chancellor said he would end nuclear power within the first 100 days of a Labour Government, and the new Welsh First Minister said:
“I think the attitude to nuclear power we have here in Wales is to be sceptical about it”.
If we in this House want to encourage international investors to invest in new projects, it behoves us to express solidarity and consistency of purpose.
I have been very clear about why Hitachi made this decision. We understand it. It is was commercial decision. The hon. Gentleman did not say whether he would have gone further than we were willing to go. Is he proposing that we take more than one third of the equity—in effect, take Government control and all the risk attached to such an investment? He did not say whether we should be providing a contract for more than £75 per MWh, which would go straight to the bills of customers—both industrial and residential. It is hard to say how we can go beyond financing all the debts. I think, then, that fair-minded Members would accept that we have made a substantial and generous offer, but unfortunately it has not been possible to achieve the outcome that all sides wanted.
The hon. Gentleman asks how we can continue discussions and why the company has suspended, rather than cancelled, the proposals. It is for the reasons I have said. We are going to look at new financing models, including the regulatory asset base model recommended by the Public Accounts Committee. I think it makes sense to do that.
On our future energy needs, the hon. Gentleman was wrong to talk about the next 10 years, because we are talking about supplies beyond that. There is no issue with the future security of supply; National Grid itself has said that. Plans for Wylfa are long term and there is time for the market to react to this announcement. In many ways, the challenge of financing new nuclear is one of falling costs and greater abundance of alternative technologies, which means that nuclear is being out- competed. Far from there being a difficulty with future supply, those are the reasons why the competitiveness of nuclear is more difficult.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the other projects, including at Moorside in Cumbria. As I said, that decision was taken for different reasons, but in the review and the White Paper we will publish, that model will be available to all such sites. Finally, in the case of other renewables, we have seen a great expansion in renewable capacity, and that will continue. He mentioned the case of the Swansea tidal lagoon. No one is more enthusiastic than I about innovation and new technologies, but the truth is that the costs of the proposed project were three times that of Hinkley Point C, and a full programme would make a tiny contribution to our energy supply for a much greater cost.
I hope that we can work together in the weeks and months ahead. The hon. Gentleman is an expert and a dedicated student of energy policy. In considering the White Paper, I hope that we can agree an approach that will command the support of international investors, so that this country can continue to be a nuclear nation.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the extraordinary lengths that he was willing to go to in trying to create the right conditions for this important north Wales project to happen. However, given Hitachi’s decision, given the decision on Moorside and, in fact, given the failure of a whole swathe of Japanese nuclear projects around the world, are the days of relying on mammoth nuclear power stations that make huge demands of taxpayers’ cash over? Should we not be putting more energy into examining smaller nuclear reactor technology?
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend is right that small modular reactors have significant potential. The nuclear sector deal that we agreed with the sector and published last year contains a substantial commitment to small modular reactors, many of which would be deployable on the sites of existing and recently decommissioned nuclear reactors. However, even large new nuclear reactors can make a useful contribution. There is a challenge in every country, and this is by no means just a feature of Japanese investors. I have described clearly and, I hope, candidly the challenges that exist given the abundant availability and falling prices of alternatives. That is why we will take forward a serious assessment of whether a different financing model might make the economics more competitive. Again, the sector deal that we struck contains a programme to reduce the build costs of new nuclear, which would of course also help its financeability.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
This statement confirms that the UK Government’s nuclear programme is in tatters, yet the Secretary of State comes to the House, commends this statement, and says that he will carry on regardless, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The National Audit Office confirmed that the Hinkley Point C strike rate of £92.50 per MWh was a bad deal. We know that offshore wind is currently £57.50 per MWh, but that is based on a 15-year concession, as opposed to a 35-year concession for the nuclear deal.
The Secretary of State has confirmed that the Government were so desperate for Wylfa that they would take something like a £6 billion stake and provide £9 billion of debt financing, yet he pretends that they were being prudent by limiting the 35-year contract to £75 per MWh. His use of the word “generous” in the statement could not be more appropriate. When Toshiba pulled out of Moorside with the loss of £100 million, its share price increased. At the time, the Secretary of State said, “Don’t worry. The circumstances are unique.” With this latest setback from Hitachi, the UK Government need a proper re-evaluation of their nuclear policy; they should not look just at alternative funding mechanisms.
Four existing nuclear power stations are due to close by 2024, taking more than 4 GW of capacity out of the grid, so what is the Government’s plan for replacing that capacity? New nuclear power stations are clearly not an option that could be completed by 2024. When will we know how much money is going to be thrown at Rolls-Royce for the small modular reactors that the Secretary of State mentioned? Why are the Government still blocking onshore wind in Scotland when it is clearly the cheapest mode of generation? When is the cut-off date for the ongoing discussions with Hitachi? When will the plug finally be pulled? When did the Government first find out about Hitachi pulling out? It was already being reported in the press, so how long before coming to the House to make this statement did the Secretary of State find out? When will nuclear power be properly benchmarked against onshore and offshore wind? When will the Government wake up and end their ideological obsession with nuclear?
Greg Clark
Given the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that the strike price for Hinkley Point C was excessive, I would have thought he would welcome and approve of my statement, which sets a limit on what it is possible to provide to finance a private investment. He asks when the decision was made by Hitachi. My understanding is that it was made in Japan at 9 o’clock this morning, and I hope he would accept that I have come to the House as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman is critical of the nuclear industry, but I would have thought that he might want to pay tribute to Scotland’s proud tradition in the nuclear sector and to the people that have worked and contributed to our energy supply and still do. Chapelcross, Dounreay, Hunterston and Torness have for decades provided good jobs and employment both directly and in the supply chain across Scotland and continue to do so today. My determination to continue our tradition of being a nuclear nation offers continuing opportunities to Scotland, and I would have thought that he would welcome that.
Far from being at the expense of renewable energy, our energy policies have supported Scotland to become a world leader in securing energy from renewable sources. In fact, we heard earlier this month from WWF Scotland that wind output in Scotland has broken through the barrier of 100% of demand for the first time. That comes as a result of the policies that this Government have put in place to bring down the costs of wind, which is highly competitive. As a result, that is causing some competitive challenges for other technologies, including nuclear, but I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the progress that has been made on renewables.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
This announcement, although widely anticipated, will be greeted with dismay in north Wales, where Wylfa was and remains an important part of the vision for the future of the north Wales economy, as expressed in the north Wales growth bid. My right hon. Friend will know that the all-party parliamentary group on Mersey Dee North Wales has been working closely with both central and local government in connection with the growth bid. Will he or one of his Ministers be prepared to meet the group to discuss Wylfa, its future and the potential for other means of energy generation in north Wales?
Greg Clark
I pay tribute to the role that my right hon. Friend played in the earlier stages of discussions for the Wylfa site. As is evident, such matters are complex and difficult to secure, but he laid the groundwork for some of the progress that has been made, and I hope that the process might ultimately be successful. Of course, I have complete commitment to the north Wales growth deal, and I would be delighted to have a meeting with him and my ministerial colleagues. The Secretary of State for Wales will be in Anglesey tomorrow and will be meeting members of the local community.
As I said in my statement, we regard Anglesey and north Wales as having exceptional strengths in our energy future. Bangor University, for example, contributes exceptional world-leading innovation, and we have backed that in the sector deal. Colleagues across Government and I will work closely with colleagues in north Wales to ensure that that potential is realised.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House at the earliest opportunity to give this statement. He will know the importance of this matter to my local community, to the Welsh and UK economies and, indeed, to the Government’s nuclear policy. With 10 years of planning, a lot of work has gone into this project, as he rightly acknowledges. It started off under the Labour Government and was continued by the coalition Government and, indeed, the current Government. Wylfa is the best site in the United Kingdom for a new nuclear build, but Hitachi’s announcement puts the jobs of 400 people at risk, many of whom are my constituents. There is the potential for some 8,000 to 10,000 construction jobs, hundreds of operational jobs and, importantly, 33 apprenticeships, so I hope that we can work to ensure that we save as much of that as possible. The supply chain and small and medium-sized enterprises are important as well, and they have been planning for this for years.
So I ask the Secretary of State: can we work together to keep this project alive and ensure that we create the momentum so that it can be ready for a future developer, or indeed this developer, with the right mechanism? We need a better mechanism for financing, not just in the nuclear sector but for all large energy construction, including the tidal lagoon. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) in this regard, because I feel that an opportunity for innovation has been lost with the tidal lagoon, and the Welsh economy needs it. We know that £16 billion has been taken out of the Welsh economy as a result of that announcement, and we need to redistribute that.
I echo the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) in saying that we need extra help and extra resources to plug the gap following this announcement today. We have a mechanism through the north Wales growth deal whereby the Welsh Government work with the UK Government to create jobs, and I urge the Secretary of State to work with the new First Minister and the Economy Minister on this. The north Wales growth bid can be successful. I will be meeting the Secretary of State for Wales as well, but I want to ask the Secretary of State to work closely with us on this. Will he host a delegation involving myself, key stakeholders and his officials to look at a funding mechanism for the future that will work not just for new nuclear but for all large projects? North Wales is a centre of excellence for low carbon, nuclear, renewables and marine energy. It has the potential; let us work together to make this happen.
Greg Clark
I repeat my commendation of the hon. Gentleman. He has been a consistent and passionate campaigner not only for the interests of his constituents but for the excellence of the industry in north Wales, and in Anglesey in particular. I can give him that wholehearted commitment. My officials will certainly meet him, but they will also come with me and my nuclear Minister and we will work together in a completely open-book way on all the options. The hon. Gentleman serves with distinction on the Select Committee, which I think will also want to scrutinise the options and the potential for financing. I repeat the commitment I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) that we continue to regard the north Wales growth deal as an excellent base to reinforce the strengths of the area, and I will work very closely with him on this.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned marine energy, which is one of the opportunities that we have in his constituency and around north Wales. Far from having closed the door to marine technologies, we want to continue to invest in innovation. When it comes to deployment, the technologies need to demonstrate value for money, but we will work with them, as we did with the offshore wind sector, to bring costs down so that they can win at auction alongside other technologies.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it remains highly desirable to have a diversity of providers and technologies in civil nuclear generation? Will he therefore confirm, particularly in the light of recent concerns expressed about some Chinese investments, that the Government will remain fully supportive of the proposal from China General Nuclear to invest in a new power station at Bradwell-on-Sea in my constituency, subject of course to a generic design assessment and other permissions being obtained?
Greg Clark
As my right hon. Friend knows, CGN is an investor in the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, which is being built as we speak. That is proceeding at pace. When it comes to Bradwell, CGN is again making successful strides through the approval process. All investment is subject to that process, but I can confirm that it has our full support as it goes through the regulatory approvals.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I, too, thank the right hon. Gentleman for coming to the House today to deliver his statement. I also thank him for his openness to meeting north Wales Members on the issue of Wylfa Newydd. In his statement, he said that central Government were now relying more on renewables. May I put the north Wales picture to him? I can tell him that 1,500 wind turbines—sea turbines—were planned for the Rhiannon field off the coast of north Wales, but those plans have been cancelled by the private sector. The tidal lagoons for Wales were key to the development of the Welsh economy, yet the Government pulled their support for the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. That had a knock-on effect for the huge lagoon planned for off the coast of north Wales, and we have heard today about the cancellation of a £16 billion investment in the north Wales economy. This will devastate the north Wales economy. The people of north Wales need to know that the Prime Minister is batting for them and for the UK. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to place in the House of Commons Library the minutes of her meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, to ensure that we know that that is what she has been doing on behalf of the people of north Wales?
Greg Clark
The Prime Minister has repeatedly discussed nuclear investment with the Prime Minister of Japan, as have I with my opposite number there. In fact, in November, I flew to Tokyo to discuss the negotiations going on here, given the difficulties that the investor was having, and I met my opposite number at the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. This has been a substantial, and cordial, Government-to-Government relationship, and the hon. Gentleman has my assurance that we will continue that. I mentioned in my statement the work of our embassy in Tokyo, which has been an excellent and expert source of advice. That will continue to be available.
When it comes to investment in renewables, the hon. Gentleman will know that Wales is a substantial and proud leader in renewable energy. I think Gwynt y Môr is the second largest wind farm already deployed in Europe. I mentioned in my statement the rising availability of alternative technologies. To put this in context, in 2017 we procured more than 3 GW of offshore wind in a single contract for difference auction at £57.50 per MWh. That is more in a single auction than this plant was going to provide. As I have said, the challenge is the competition coming from other technologies, and Wales is a beneficiary of some aspects of that.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
In his statement, my right hon. Friend said that the economics of the energy market had changed significantly in recent years, meaning that renewable energy could now be not only cheap but readily available. Does he share my concern that consumers will not see all the benefits of the reduced prices, given that we are bound into these exceedingly long-term and hugely expensive contracts? An example is Hinkley, whose strike price means that it will probably be the most expensive form of energy in the history of energy generation. Can he give me an assurance or commitment that nuclear power will not result in consumer bills skyrocketing in the years to come?
Greg Clark
That is demonstrated in my statement today. We were talking about a strike price substantially less than that of Hinkley, and I said when I made my statement to the House on Hinkley that we would do that. I say gently to my hon. Friend, who is a lifelong environmentalist, that exactly the same arguments were advanced against the initial contracts for offshore wind—namely, that they would be burdensome and that we should not enter into them. We have now seen substantial capacity becoming available at prices that will shortly be free of subsidy entirely. That is an excellent development for consumers, for the reasons that he has given, but it is also the case that the manufacturers in the supply chain are located right across the UK, which is a further industrial benefit of the strategic policy.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I agree with the Secretary of State that Britain has had huge success in renewables, especially with cheaper offshore wind, thanks to the Liberal Democrat policy that he has kept in place. However, I also want to express astonishment at the generosity of the offer to Hitachi. With the equity stake and the debt finance, it appears to be even greater than that offered to Hinkley Point C, yet Hitachi—like Toshiba at Moorside—is still unwilling to build new nuclear in Britain. What does the Secretary of State blame most for this setback to his nuclear strategy? Is it the fact that renewables are becoming much cheaper than nuclear, is it Japan’s fears about Brexit, or is it something else?
Greg Clark
I am disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman who, as a former Secretary of State, I would have thought knows the changing economics of the energy market, which I set out pretty clearly. I gently remind him that, as Secretary of State, he was responsible in his time for the negotiation of the terms of the Hinkley Point C agreement, so it is surprising to hear him being so critical of it.
The right hon. Gentleman wants to take credit for one of the policies for which he was responsible but not the other, which I might uncharitably say is characteristic of his party. As with Hinkley Point, there was a recognition that financing such significant projects—£16 billion from a private company—is hard to do through the conventional channels of private investment. It is desirable to have nuclear as part of a diverse energy mix. If I might put it this way, having a substantial mix of technologies has an insurance quality. We should recognise that, but there is a limit to what we can pay for the benefit, which is reflected in my statement.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Sizewell C is an important component of the world leading low-carbon energy sector emerging along the north Suffolk coast. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government remain committed to Sizewell C and to negotiating a value-for-money deal with EDF?
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm what the Prime Minister said to the Prime Minister of Japan when she raised the issue of Wylfa with him last week?
Greg Clark
Sadly, when the Prime Minister was meeting the Prime Minister of Japan, I was in this Chamber winding up the debate on the meaningful vote. I would otherwise have been in their company, but I was doing my duties in this House. I was not at the meeting, but I can put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. The involvement of the Prime Minister in this and other joint investments with Japan has been consistent and very long standing. As I said to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), I have visited Japan many times to discuss this at the highest level with the Government and with the parties.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to set out his discussions in such detail. He will appreciate the level of concern in south Gloucestershire this morning, especially among the people who rely on the jobs at Oldbury and its supply chain, because of the uncertainty following this announcement. There are localised issues, such as the properties bought up around Oldbury that now lie vacant. People are unsure about the future of those properties and about some of the more specific, niche issues. Will the Secretary of State come to Oldbury and meet me to discuss the issue with local councillors, workers and stakeholders to make sure we can find a route forward?
Greg Clark
As I said to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), I recognise that this is a sad time for the staff, who are expert and well respected in their fields. This is a financing decision, and it is no reflection on the quality of their work. They are of the highest calibre.
Of course I will come to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents to discuss how we can make sure that his part of the world, as well as north Wales, continues to have the reputation for excellence in energy that it has long enjoyed.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State made some very supportive comments in his statement about small modular reactors, which I welcome. I thank him for meeting me recently to discuss the ideas put forward by Professor Keith Ridgway and others at the nuclear advanced manufacturing research centre in Sheffield for ways in which we can develop capacity to produce the parts for SMRs in Sheffield. The Secretary of State has issued supportive words about that, but will he now go further and get his officials to work with Professor Ridgway and others to develop these plans, which would be good for both our energy policy and our industrial strategy?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I visited the nuclear advanced manufacturing research centre, as he knows, and I was impressed with the facilities. The sector deal makes a commitment to new nuclear technologies, and a consortium has made an application to the industrial strategy challenge fund. He understands that the operation of that fund, as with all science and innovation investments, is correctly scrutinised by a panel of global experts. They have given the application a positive assessment, but it has further due diligence to complete. Of course, I will update him and the House when that process has finished.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I welcome what the Secretary of State said in his statement about the decreasing costs and increasing availability of renewables. If we are to embrace a renewables-heavy energy mix, does he agree that we need to look at what changes we must make to the capacity market to allow demand response, storage and other types of digital flexibility to play their part fully in that energy system?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is quite right, and he has great experience and expertise in energy matters. We have talked a bit about offshore wind today, but one of the big changes that is taking place in the energy market, and affecting the economics of energy, is in the technologies and ways of working such as demand-side response and storage. We have not mentioned those, but they are contributing to how our energy system can be both more resilient and lower cost than was dreamed possible even 10 years ago.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Secretary of State rightly points to the fact that renewable energy is a Scottish success story, and such events vindicate the Scottish Government’s decision not to join the UK Government’s vision for the UK as a nuclear nation. Will he please outline the Government’s sunk costs in terms of civil service time and any other development costs incurred as a result of this project?
Greg Clark
The model we have pursued is one in which these proposals are private sector-led. I place on record my respect and gratitude for the time, effort and financial investment that Hitachi has made in working with us to develop the proposal to this stage. Of course there have been discussions with my officials, but the vast majority of the costs have been with the proposed developer.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest as a council member of the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, which recently published a report by Professor Iain MacLeod of the University of Strathclyde entitled, “Engineering for Energy: A proposal for governance of the energy system”.
This is a major issue because of the risk of blackouts increasing from hours to days, particularly in Scotland. If that does occur, and we are talking about a lengthy delay in restarting the bid, there will be negative consequences for the supply of food, water, heat, money and petrol. It would be a disastrous situation for the Scottish economy and could lead to civil unrest. The root cause of that risk is the closure of large-scale coal and nuclear power stations, and the grid has not been reformulated and replanned to deal with the intermittency of renewables. That is a massive risk that the Scottish Government have not done anything to address. What will the Secretary of State do to reduce this massive existential risk to the national security of this country?
Greg Clark
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I note his interest and his experience in this field. National Grid is undertaking a substantial programme of transformation to make the grid smarter and able to accommodate intermittent renewables. Again, progress has been made. The amount of renewable energy being deployed is vastly in excess of what the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) was advised was possible when he was in office. Great strides are being made. A smarter grid is a more effective and more resilient grid.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State call together the MPs who are affected by the supply chain implications? In my case, Berkeley was predicated on both Wylfa and Oldbury. People with potential are being retrained in the nuclear industry. Does he understand the knock-on effects that that will have, and will he meet us to see how we can try to mitigate them?
Greg Clark
I would be delighted to do that. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who is responsible for the nuclear industry, and I regularly meet the representatives of the industry, including the supply chain. I emphasise that it was Hitachi’s decision to suspend the development of the project but, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) knows, a bit further down the road from him is Hinkley Point C, one of the most significant pieces of civil engineering being constructed in the world.
People are being trained in construction and in nuclear engineering in a way that has not happened in this country for more than a generation, giving opportunities to many suppliers. Nearly two thirds of the value of the Hinkley Point C contract goes with domestic suppliers. He knows that there is a renaissance of the suppliers of nuclear expertise, and I am happy to meet him and the companies that we regularly meet.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am grateful for the speed with which this statement arrived at this House today, and I compliment the Secretary of State on that. Part of EDF’s fleet is at Torness is my constituency, and Members have pointed out the many skilled jobs involved and contributions that these workers make. Some of the answers to the problems that will come in 2030, which is, unfortunately, not too far away, lie in not only bigger issues, such as the small modular reactors that have been discussed today, but with smaller, simpler decisions. I am thinking of things such as the simplicity of being able to move apprentices around the fleet in the UK, which is impossible for EDF at the moment because of the differentiation in approach taken by the Scottish Government north of the border and the Government down here. Will the Government confirm that they will continue to work with EDF in particular—I say that on behalf of my constituency—and all suppliers to try to solve all the small problems, as well as the big ones, to facilitate a better, stronger future for the nuclear industry, which we require in order to keep the lights on in the UK?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for such a constructive contribution. He raises an excellent point, and I would be happy to meet him and EDF to solve that problem, of which I was not aware. It seems to me that if we are to benefit from the opportunities that exist across the UK to develop skilled work and make it available to residents of all parts of the UK, we should not put obstacles in the way of that.
Point of Order
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Along with 32 Members of Parliament from across the House, I applied to the Backbench Business Committee last autumn for a debate on the upsurge in violent antisocial behaviour, which is happening in a number of constituencies. I understand that many applications are made. Although we were successful in ours, we were told that we had to be put on a waiting list, as time had not been allocated by the Government. Just last night, a number of my constituents came to me to inform me about delinquents throwing bricks at buses in the Orchard park part of my constituency. Obviously that is very worrying for bus drivers, passengers and other road users, and I very much hope that action is taken forthwith. My point is that this House adopted the Wright reforms to allow Back Benchers to bring forward issues of concern to them and their constituents in a timely manner, but at the moment the Government do not seem to be allocating sufficient time for Backbench Business Committee debates. I know that there are two taking place today, but I am not aware of any additional days for such debates after that. I know we are very pressed because of Brexit, but is there anything you can do to put pressure on the Government to make sure that time is allocated for us to debate these issues of real importance to our constituents?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The business statement has just taken place, and I am not sure whether this issue was aired then. I see that next Thursday we will have another Backbench Business Committee debate, along with another business statement—there may also be one in between. Perhaps she might like to raise this issue at that point. She also might like to discuss it with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, because I know he has fairly regular meetings to discuss the timings. In the meantime, I am sure those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her comments and will feed them back.
Sustainable Seas
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Mary Creagh will speak on her subject for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Mary Creagh to respond to these in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning, and I am sure they will indicate if they wish to do so. I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Mary Creagh.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I begin by thanking the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to present the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on sustainable seas. I have a copy of it here, and it is our 14th report to this Parliament. We launched our inquiry last April, examining how our oceans can be protected from climate change, overfishing, resource extraction and pollution, and what more the Government should do. Human activities in both coastal and open waters have dramatically increased in recent years. The UN estimates that up to 40% of the world’s oceans are impacted by humans, with dire consequences, including pollution, depleted fisheries and the loss of coastal habitats. We have treated the seas as a sewer—literally—and that has to stop.
Plastic makes up 70% of all the litter in the ocean, with most of it coming from land, being transported by rivers and draining into the sea. If no action is taken to reduce plastic pollution, it will treble in the next 10 years. The amazing “Blue Planet II” programme showed us the consequences: a turtle tangled in a plastic sack; and the death of a newborn whale calf from causes unknown. Plastic litter and chemical pollution are everywhere in the ocean. These plastics are eaten by seabirds and they suffocate coral reefs; they break down into microplastics, which are eaten by sea life, which we then eat, potentially transporting chemicals into our human food chain. The long-term harm from plastic and chemical pollution is unknown because, as the Government’s chief scientific officer told us, we have not looked hard enough.
There is so much more that the Government should do to prevent our waste from reaching the ocean. We could start by not exporting our waste to countries with poor recycling infrastructure. Supporting Indonesia and Malaysia to reduce their plastic while simultaneously exporting the UK’s contaminated plastics to them shows the Government’s lack of a joined-up approach to reducing plastic pollution. The Government published their resources and waste strategy in December. It places much more onus on producers to pay for the cost of clearing up and treating waste, as was recommended in the Environmental Audit Committee’s reports on plastic bottles and coffee cups last year. But we cannot wait until 2042 to phase out avoidable single-use plastics, and the plastic bottle deposit return scheme, which was promised by Ministers in 2017, will not be ready until 2023.
The Government have signed up to the 14th sustainable development goal target to prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds by 2025. So here is our plan. We want to see the Government ban single-use plastic packaging that is difficult to recycle; introduce a 25p latte levy on disposable coffee cups, with all coffee cups to be recycled by 2023; and bring forward their deposit return scheme and extended producer responsibility schemes before the end of this Parliament. The Government must also set out how they will create and fund the UK’s domestic recycling industry to end the export of contaminated waste to developing countries.
Climate change is causing a triple whammy of harm from ocean acidification, ocean warming and deoxygenation. This harms the entire food web and disrupts our weather systems. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report showed us that a 2°C rise above pre-industrial levels will significantly harm biodiversity and fish stocks, and will destroy nearly all the coral reefs in the world. If we can keep the temperature rise to 1.5°, we will still lose 90% of coral reefs. Until we did this inquiry, I did not know that the UK has a cold-water reef in the south of England.
That is why we have to redouble our actions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and meet the Paris agreement on climate change. The Government must set out their plans to achieve that in the first half of this year and set a net-zero emissions target by 2050 at the very latest. Species affected by climate change include krill and plankton; if they are removed from the marine food chain, that could lead to a one-third collapse in the populations of predators such as polar bears, walruses, seals, sea lions, penguins and sea birds.
Britain’s overseas territories and their waters cover an area nearly 30 times the size of the UK, and nearly 90% of the UK’s biodiversity is located in their waters. They have the most unique and biodiverse areas on the planet, and we have a huge responsibility to protect them. We welcome the Government’s December announcement on the creation of a marine protected area for the South Sandwich Islands. We have also discussed with the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, who is in the Chamber, how the exploitation of minerals from the deep sea could begin in the next decade. The prime sites are around the deep sea hydrothermal vents, but those habitats are unexplored and unique. We heard from scientists that in a very small-scale study they found six hitherto unknown species. This is the great last wilderness left on earth; in fact, it may be where life on earth first began. Mining those sites could have catastrophic impacts—from local extinctions of as yet unmapped ecosystems and species, to the production of sediment plumes, which can travel long distances through the water column, smothering seabed organisms. Our report urges the Government not to pursue licences at active hydrothermal vents in their own jurisdiction and internationally, and to use their experience in regulating marine industries and their influence on the International Seabed Authority to impose a moratorium on exploitation licences in those areas.
We heard how so much of the sea—58% of it—is outside national jurisdictions, has little or no protection and is suffering from the tragedy of the commons: everyone goes there to graze their sheep, but there is nothing left at the end. Everyone goes there to take their piece, but no one is protecting it. We must lead international negotiations. The Government have signed up to the UN’s ambition to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, but that will work only if our Government, alongside other nations, fund the satellite monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for those areas that we want to protect.
The UN is currently negotiating a high seas treaty. We call on the Government to seize this chance and push for a Paris agreement of the seas. Like the climate change agreement, it would contain legally binding targets and regular conferences of the parties to hold Governments to account, and designate marine protected areas and the funding needed to achieve them. We look forward to the publication of the Government’s international ocean strategy later this year. I hope it will include and build on our Committee’s cross-party ambitions.
We are an island nation. We care passionately about our seas and oceans. I commend the report to the House, and commend my Committee colleagues for such an excellent report.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend the hon. Lady for her statement, and her Committee for its superb report. I hope that other Select Committees will follow her example and make statements directly to the House. Page 48 of the report recommends a 25p coffee cup levy and that all coffee cups should be recycled by 2023. All our constituents can readily identify with that issue. It does not strike me that recycling coffee cups need be that problematic, so why do we need to wait four years for them to be recycled?
Mary Creagh
That is an excellent question. The Government’s resources and waste strategy states that they want the industry to work towards voluntary commitments and that they will introduce a deposit return scheme for plastic bottles, but that they are ruling out the latte levy, which we think would influence a very important behaviour change. We need to change the way in which we consume the planet’s resources and bend the curve of our plastic use. In the time between us writing our coffee cup report and last December, despite all the warm words from the coffee cup industry and all the available discounts, the number of coffee cups used went up by 500 million. The target increases every year as more people buy and drink coffee. Industry efforts are not working. The product is difficult to deal with because it has a plastic lining and a paper outer part, and it needs specialist collection and specialist disposal. Some companies are working heroically in trying to tackle the issue, but even if we get to 30 million or 100 million, there are still 3 billion coffee cups in circulation every year.
I agree passionately with the hon. Gentleman that it should not take another four years. The Government need to regulate, but I am afraid that they are reluctant to do so. It is interesting how far ahead of policy the nation and consumers are, and I hope that Ministers are listening.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This is another excellent report by the Environmental Audit Committee and I am very proud to have been a part it. The underlying principle that such reports should always follow is that the planet’s resources are precious and should be preserved, not plundered, whether they be fish or rare minerals that could be found in hydrothermal vents. That should underpin everything we do. Does the Committee Chair share my concern that while the Government are treading water, the race for deep sea mining and the rise of other environmentally damaging economic activities in the seas are going ahead untrammelled, and that there is a risk that if we do not act quickly, we will not be able to put the genie back in the bottle?
Mary Creagh
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is a fantastic member of the Committee and a real thought leader in many of the areas under discussion. As she said in Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, she has been talking about the food system—“banging on” is how she put it, I think—and following the persistence principle for many years.
My hon. Friend is right about the race for deep sea mining. We are in a new wild west of exploration. The irony is that we are prepared to plunder and churn up the last great, unexplored wilderness—the equivalent of Yosemite national park and other brilliant places that people travel the world to see, such as our own Lake and Peak districts—so that we can have more “smart” phones. Those rare earth minerals are used in our smartphones and in some of our industrial applications. If we were better at recycling the rare earth elements in the 7 billion mobile phones, or however many there are, on the planet—I think there is at least one for every man, woman and child—we would not have to do that. A positive side-effect of the exploration is that we are finding out more about these unexplored areas, but the question is: what happens when we know they are there, and what will we discover? That is a problem.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for chairing the Committee and for her brilliant precis of a brilliant report. Needless to say, as a member of the Committee I fully endorse all its recommendations and am very proud of it.
I hope the hon. Lady will allow me to highlight two of the recommendations. The Government’s blue belt policy is probably our single biggest opportunity to protect a very large portion of the world’s oceans. The report rightly urges the Foreign Office to back full protection of the waters around Ascension Island. It is worth saying that the Ascension Island Council, as well as DEFRA, has made very promising noises, but the blockage seems to be the Foreign Office. The first recommendation, therefore, is for the Foreign Office to get going, agree with the Ascension Island Council and DEFRA, and provide maximum protection at minimum cost to an incredibly important part of the world.
The second recommendation is to build on the recent announcement of increased no-take areas around the South Sandwich Islands, to provide full protection for those extraordinary and pristine waters, much of which featured in the “Blue Planet” series. That view is backed by an almost unprecedented alliance of scientists, experts and non-governmental organisations. The solution will cost very little, if anything, in public money, but it will deliver huge results for nature, so will the Foreign Office get on with that as well?
Mary Creagh
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who was instrumental in getting consensus around the recommendations to the Foreign Office. Ascension Island could benefit from a huge boost from tourism if it was designated. He is right that the Antarctic krill fishing industry is very heavily regulated, but, again, it is in danger of over-exploitation in order to feed our insatiable demand for farmed fish, including salmon. Increasing the no-take areas and protecting them properly is really, really important.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady and her Committee on a very good report. I was struck recently by the Simon Reeve series on the Mediterranean, which highlighted, in particular, the vast areas of plastic greenhouses around Almería in south Spain, where they produce enormous quantities of vegetables and fruit for European supermarkets, including those in this country. I have written to all the supermarkets in this country, but I am not convinced that proper measures are in place to guarantee that the supply chains are meeting high environmental and labour standards. Those chains make use of migrant labour from Africa and have awful working conditions. Does she share my view that the supermarkets have a real responsibility here?
Mary Creagh
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I share his concern about the plastics that come off the greenhouses where our tomatoes and cucumbers are grown, which are discarded and then literally chucked into the sea. We treat the sea as a waste disposal unit, and it is not. There is more that supermarkets can do in tackling the full carbon footprint of the fruits and vegetables that they import and making sure that they stamp out any abuse and any forced and slave labour in their fruit and picking supply chains. We know that that they is an area where forced labour and child labour are prevalent.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I commend the hon. Lady and her Committee for this excellent report. May I also mention the excellent work that is done by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is based in my constituency to both identify the problems and come up with solutions? Based on its work, the UK can be a global pioneer in the sustainable stewardship of our seas?
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a former and much esteemed member of our Committee, for that question. I saw the CEFAS ship on a visit to his constituency when I was shadowing the DEFRA brief. He is right that we have world-leading marine biologists and marine scientists. The world looks to the UK for our brilliance and thought leadership on the subject. One criticism that we have of Government is that they have stopped funding our long time series around ocean certification measurements. One key recommendation is that we need to measure the acidity of the ocean. We know what it was going back decades, but we need to have more monitoring sites around the UK, so I hope that he will help us in pushing the Government on that task.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee for her leadership on this report, which built on our report on plastics. Does she agree that Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials did a great job in trying to make the Weddell sea a marine protected area, but that they need to redouble their efforts with the Chinese, Russian and Norwegian Governments? However, our work on plastics is well behind. We do not have a compulsory deposit return scheme guaranteed, and the target for eliminating single-use plastic is not until 2042. We need to have both those things in place much quicker.
Mary Creagh
Again, I appreciate the input of my hon. Friend and neighbour into the Committee and this report. He is right: we need to speed up our ambition. The scientists have warned us that we have 12 years to tackle climate change. It is no good putting targets in place for 2042—that is far too little, far too late. We heard about some of the interesting foreign policy discussions that are going on around Antarctica, particularly some of the negotiations with the Norwegians and the Russians. Clearly a lot of politics is involved in the oceans, and we have to be mindful of that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I also add my thanks to the Chair, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), and the Committee for bringing this report forward? You were very clear that these must be quick questions, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will be succinct.
I live on the edge of Strangford lough in my constituency. Ards and North Down Borough Council has managed to get a grant to carry out an environmental project at the mouth of the narrows of Strangford lough, where the ebb and flow of the tide is, to harvest the litter and plastic that flow through there. That might be a small project in the bigger picture of what we are talking about today, but small projects collectively make an immense difference in the long run. What assistance is there for councils across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to involve themselves in projects that, singularly, do not do a terrible lot, but collectively make a big difference? Can the hon. Lady tell me whether grants are available?
Mary Creagh
That sounds like an absolutely brilliant initiative from Ards and North Down Borough Council. I think that the hon. Gentleman also has an oyster fishery in Strangford lough, the produce of which I have enjoyed on several occasions. I am not aware of what funding is available, but I am sure that officials will write to him on that issue.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate her Committee on its excellent and challenging report. It is likely that much of the plastic entering the oceans has been collected supposedly for recycling. Does she agree that, at the very least, this country needs to institute comprehensive and rigorous checks of all recyclable materials exported for processing? We need to put our own house in order as well as demanding an international agreement to protect our seas from the dumping of supposedly recycled material.
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister is absolutely right. We do have to put our own house in order. We know that most of the plastics enter the ocean from, I think, five rivers in Africa and Asia. There is no point in our carrying out heroic clean-up work here at home if we are then going to export the material to far-away countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand that do not have the right infrastructure in place and whose own populations are now rebelling against being consumed in a mountain of our contaminated plastics. We need to do more, and there is much more that we can do. The Government can start by carrying out better enforcement. There are some great waste exporters, but there are also some criminals in the waste sector. The Environment Agency carried out just three unannounced inspections in 2017. That is not enough. When we sent in the National Audit Office, it found that the audit systems and processes for waste export did not tally, so someone somewhere is playing the system, and we need to crack down on it here at home.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I do have a question, but, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to genuinely thank the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and her Committee for once again producing what I really feel is an excellent piece of work. She has heard me speak before about the work that this Committee does in looking across Government and across boundaries. We saw it with the “Greening Finance” report, which had some superb recommendations around understanding risk from a regulatory perspective, particularly for pension regulators, and she will know that the Government have responded to that. I genuinely thank her and her Committee for their work. It is an extremely high-quality Committee, with some very talented and able colleagues and very good Committee staff.
It is ironic, is it not, that this House is almost empty, but that it was packed when we were debating the next three years in Europe? There are very few of us here today to understand what is happening to 70% of our planet. This report joins up the challenge of climate and environmental sustainability across land, sea, air, and, of course, the very important littoral zones. That is what we need to do and are doing, and this is a superb report.
The Government, of course, are listening. The hon. Lady will know that she has made a number of recommendations that are relevant to my Department, as well as to the Foreign Office and DEFRA. I am off after this to have a meeting with one of the DEFRA Ministers. The hon. Lady knows, I think, that she is pushing at an open door with this Government, and we will continue to do whatever we can to support these recommendations.
Finally, I do have a question for the hon. Lady. So much of what she says is relevant to both our overseas territories and our Commonwealth partners, which, in many cases, are small island states facing down a barrel of disruption—literally—from climate change and ocean pollution. Has she communicated the findings of this report to those countries and organisations? If not, how can we as a Government facilitate her in doing so?
Mary Creagh
I thank the Minister for her kind words and for her many appearances before our Committee, giving evidence on a variety of different subjects. I have also been neglectful in not thanking our brilliant Committee staff, who have worked so hard on the various Committee reports that we have produced, and on this one in particular.
The Minister is right; here we are in an almost empty Chamber, with people at home saying “Why is nobody talking about this?” Obviously Brexit it taking up so much time because it is urgent, but this is also urgent and important. We debated whether or not to launch the report on this date, but we decided that we needed to talk about the other important stuff as well as Brexit.
The Minister is also right that our Commonwealth territories are on the frontline of illegal activities, including illegal fishing, which is depleting their domestic, more sustainable fishing practices. They are at all sorts of risk, not least from the changes in weather systems that come from ocean warming, which made the hurricanes that sadly hit them last September much more powerful, slow-moving and damaging.
We have not communicated this report to anyone in the overseas territories, although the Committee has met representatives of some countries, including parliamentarians from Belize in October. Perhaps I could meet the Minister at the back of the Chair to discuss how we can get the report out to a much wider audience in the Commonwealth and overseas territories.
Backbench Business
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mental Health First Aid in the Workplace
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that the UK is facing a mental health crisis; further notes that, according to the Independent Review into Mental Health in the Workplace 2017 commissioned by the Prime Minister, each year 300,000 people with long-term mental health conditions lose their job; recognises that Centre for Mental Health research shows presenteeism from mental health is estimated to cost the economy £15.1 billion per annum; acknowledges this same research shows it costs the economy £8.4 billion per annum for mental health absenteeism; considers that a recent poll by OnePoll found that 38 per cent of people reported being stressed about work; observes that the Health and Safety Act 1974 made it a legal necessity for workplaces to train someone in medical first aid; and calls on the Government to change this law via secondary legislation to provide clarity that an employer’s first aid responsibilities cover both physical and mental health and to add a requirement for workplaces to train mental health first aiders.
It really is a pleasure to speak in support of this motion, alongside its co-sponsors the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). The application for this debate was supported by more 60 Members from all parts of the House, and we are very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for our discussion today.
Following the particularly challenging moments that this House has experienced over the last few days, today’s debate is a salutary reminder that the work of this Parliament goes on, and that we are capable of debating in a constructive and collegiate fashion. Our motion addresses a real and pressing need to support people affected by mental ill health. Our argument is simple. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 ensured that every large workplace has someone trained in medical first aid, and that is now an accepted and established part of every office, factory, warehouse, hotel and anywhere else that people work; so why not a trained mental health first aider in every workplace? We want to change the Health and Safety Act via secondary legislation so that an employer’s responsibility explicitly covers the mental health as well as the physical health of their employees. This debate is a true cross-party initiative, calling on the Government to make a small change to the law that would constitute a step towards establishing parity of esteem—real equality between physical and mental health.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
This is an excellent motion. Does the hon. Lady agree that when workplace training on first aid—including mental health first aid—takes place outside the workplace, the employer should be required to give the employee time off during working hours to attend?
Luciana Berger
There are many different ways in which this could be implemented. I myself have attended mental health first aid training at the workplace, but I certainly would not be averse to employers giving their staff time off for such training. I will later come to many examples showing that this is already the case with a number of employers, particularly large employers, across the country.
This debate was born out of the “Where’s Your Head At?” campaign, which was launched by campaigner Natasha Devon and supported by Mental Health First Aid England and Bauer Media, which have together collected over 200,000 names on a petition that a number of us delivered to No. 10 Downing Street. I commend those organisations for all their hard work, and pay tribute to their commitment and determination to see this positive change introduced. It really is admirable. Bauer Media—an organisation with radio stations and a number of magazines, such as Grazia—has really taken the idea forward, paying for billboards across the country to promote the campaign. I commend its social action on a matter that, as an employer, it knows would make a difference in its own workplaces.
This really would be a simple shift, but one with a huge beneficial impact on the lives of millions of British workers. No one can seriously contend that there is not a need for such a measure. Hon. Members only have to look at some of the statistics. NHS Digital suggests that one in six adults experience mental ill health, including depression, anxiety and stress-related illnesses. There are around 28 million people in work in our country, so it is not unreasonable to assume that 5 million people in work today are affected. In a recent poll, 38% of people reported being stressed about work. It is a tragedy that, according to the Stevenson-Farmer “Thriving at Work” report—a review commissioned by the Government and published just over a year ago—some 300,000 people with a long-term mental health condition are losing their jobs every single year.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She is making a powerful case and is describing an epidemic of mental ill health that has many different sources. The Environmental Audit Committee is looking into this as part of our planetary health inquiry. When I met my local Wakefield UK Youth Parliament, I was struck by how concerned the young people were about mental health in schools, and I discovered that South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust has provided mental health first aid training in schools for teachers. Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be rolled out across all schools so that teachers or trusted adults in schools can deal with young people and children in crisis?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for her important intervention. Of course, today we are talking about what happens in the workplace, but what happens with young people in places of education is equally critical. I sit on the Health and Social Care Committee, and we have interrogated the Government’s plans for the next generation and young people. There are plans in place to have a designated mental health senior lead in every school, and we should ensure that at least one person has that training. We could be doing better than that, but at least it is a start. I support the idea, and it is great to hear what is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Let me be very clear that we are talking about a huge number of people affected in our country every single day—our friends, colleagues and workmates who surround us. There is, of course, a huge economic cost as well as a very significant human cost. The Centre for Mental Health estimates that people with mental health conditions staying at work longer than they should costs our economy over £15 billion every single year, and that people being absent from work because of mental ill health costs our economy £8 billion a year. These are not insignificant sums. I reiterate that 300,000 people with a long-term mental health condition are losing their jobs every single year because they find themselves in an acute state, have to leave work, are not supported and get to a critical state, rather than having experienced early intervention or prevention, which might have helped them in the first place.
The Health and Safety Executive says that 15.4 million working days were lost in the last year alone because of stress, depression and anxiety, and the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy—I declare an interest, as I was recently appointed one of its vice-presidents— has calculated that stress is costing British businesses £1,000 per employee per year in sick pay and associated costs. That is very significant for the national economy, and for individual organisations and businesses. I do not think I need to set out any more statistics to evidence the fact that there is a clear need. Mental illness is having a significant impact on millions of workers across the country and costing our economy billions of pounds.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. As we have all heard in our constituency surgeries, one of the real costs is that people who suffer from mental illness find it very difficult to get back into employment because of the stigma, and I have to say that the public sector is among the worst at having a bias against people with mental health problems. Does she accept that?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. I am going to move on to talk about tackling the stigma and discrimination that we know still exist in our country. We have made some progress in the national conversation about tackling mental ill health, particularly with the younger generations, but in too many workplaces and too many communities, there is still the discrimination and taboo connected with mental ill health. As a constituency MP, I see that almost weekly. Men of an older generation feel that they are able to talk to me because I campaign on this issue and am very open about it, but they are perhaps unable to speak to their work colleagues—sometimes not even to their close family—because of the discrimination that they feel still exists. We are certainly on a journey as a country.
One objection to this proposal might be that mental health requires highly specialist medical intervention, not someone in the workplace with only a few days’ training—and of course that is absolutely true. Mental health conditions do require specialist diagnosis and treatment. That is why many of us, on both sides of the House, have been calling for more investment in this area to ensure that we have the clinicians within our NHS to address the mental health crisis in this country. But let us be very clear that this motion, with this specific initiative, is not seeking to substitute mental professionals with mental health first aiders. Mental health first aid training gives people the knowledge, the skills and the confidence to intervene early if someone is struggling with their mental health. It is not in any way intended to be a replacement for trained mental health professionals, either in the NHS or in our workplaces; rather it offers an early warning system and an opportunity for employee support. It is also, in response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), aimed at tackling the taboo that we often see. Raising awareness of mental ill health and placing it on an equal footing with physical ill health tackles some of the stigma and discrimination that we still have to break down.
If any colleagues would like a clearer explanation, let me say this. All of us here present would know where to go for assistance if we had a physical injury. If we had perhaps slipped, or had a burn or a cut, we could go to the officers just down there through the Chamber. Perhaps, either in this place or in a previous role, we were that first aider. But how many colleagues, or their staff would know where to go if they were struggling with their mental health? How many would have known who that person was, or if they existed at all, in their previous job? Training people in our workplaces in mental health first aid would mean that employees in workplaces right across our country had an instant answer to that question.
No one should assume that a mental health first aider is the same as a mental health professional, any more than anyone assumes that a current workplace first aider is the same as a heart surgeon, an A&E doctor or a cancer specialist. The point is that a mental health first aider provides early intervention and a critical and important signpost. They would be able to answer questions about how and where to go to get treatment. They can help to change the culture in an office or on a shop floor so that someone with a mental illness has support. They can provoke a conversation about mental health that can break down some of the stigma and prejudice. They can be a valuable first point of contact for someone struggling with their mental health in what might otherwise feel like a very lonely environment.
We do not need to talk in purely hypothetical terms. At the end of last year, the Where’s Your Head At? campaign sent a letter to the Prime Minister in support of statutory mental health first aiders. It was supported by over 40 businesses, including WHSmith, Standard Chartered and Thames Water. I am particularly proud to say that a friend of mine and good Labour colleague, Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, has, in the capital, done so much on mental health first aid training at City Hall and in London’s schools as part of his public health strategy. St John’s Ambulance will have trained 10,000 people by the end of this last period. Mental Health First Aid England has now trained over 350,000 people in mental health first aid. Councils are investing in this and other providers are making similar strides forward. Those who have completed the training say it is hugely beneficial to them and their co-workers. It gives people the skills, knowledge, confidence and language to spot the signs of mental ill health, provide support and make early interventions. But most critically, it is helping the people affected. It really can make a difference.
One of the elements of the mental health first aid training that I completed was about what to do if someone you work with is experiencing suicidal ideation and might be considering taking their own life. Some 6,000 people in our country have taken their own life in the past year and this particularly impacts on young men. This is an area where quite often people do not know what to say or do, but training such as this, and training from the Zero Suicide Alliance, which offers a free online half-an-hour session, are the tools that can really make a difference. In some cases, it really is a life or death situation.
A number of unions have come out in support of the change to the law we are seeking to make today. Community, The Teacher’s Union and Unite were all signatories to the letter to the Prime Minister I just mentioned, and the Communications Workers Union and the GMB have since joined calls for this change to the law.
The costs of training—another question that is often raised—are very clearly outweighed by the benefits of better mental health in our workplaces. Training can typically take place over a number of days, but it can also take place over one day—or half a day, providing opportunities particularly for small businesses and organisations to train people in mental health first aid, too. The training that I did was with the Liverpool city region Mayor, Steve Rotheram, and the senior leadership of Merseytravel in Liverpool. I have half a day left to do, but I have done almost the whole course and seen what the benefits can be. So we do not need to gaze into a crystal ball. We can talk to people who have been trained. But again, in particular, we can reflect and engage with the people who have been helped.
I would like to share some of the thoughts of organisations that have gotten in touch in recent days to share their experience of training mental health first aiders, the value they place on this important initiative and why they are supporting our call today. The insurance company AXA has trained over 100 of its staff to become mental health first aiders, so now each of its UK offices has one. It has also trained as mental health first aiders the staff of the companies that it provides insurance to, helping other businesses across the country to improve mental health in their organisations.
Another success story is that of Thames Water, where 350 employees across the organisation are trained in mental health first aid. They wear green lanyards so that they can be easily identified by the wider workforce. A further 250 employees have joined the company’s mental health online engagement forum. Thames Water has calculated that there has been a 75% reduction in work-related stress, anxiety and depression among its employees—a not insignificant impact.
Colleagues may not know—I was certainly not aware of this—that the construction industry is the sector where workers are most affected by mental ill health. In response to that, the Construction Industry Training Board has now committed £500,000 to the Building Mental Health initiative, which will train 156 construction workers as mental health first aiders. Further to this, Mates in Mind is a fantastic charity that works to address the stigma around poor mental health and improve positive mental wellbeing in the UK construction industry. It aims to have reached 75% of the construction industry by 2025.
I give these examples as evidence to colleagues that a number of businesses across the country have been proactive in their approach to mental health and are reaping the rewards. There are many more I could have shared, but I am conscious that many Members want to contribute to the debate.
This is an idea whose time has come. In a decade from now, when mental health first aiders are an established part of the workplace, we will wonder why we did not start sooner. It is good to have the Minister here today. As I am sure she recognises, this is a measure that can bring us together across party lines. The Minister and the Government have the chance to do a really important thing in supporting this motion. I should say that that is in line with their own pledges in the Conservative party manifesto in 2017. The Government have the opportunity to amend the 1974 Act and to take a clear step towards achieving real equality.
The term, “parity of esteem”, may seem meaningless, but it means real equality between physical and mental health. We legislated for that principle in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We are now seven years down the road and still waiting to realise that ambition. The Minister will also know that the Prime Minister has been clear on this from the start of her premiership, when she made the commitment to address the inequality between physical and mental health one of the key “burning injustices” that she wanted to erase. This motion, and the policy that it seeks to implement, gives the Prime Minister and her Government the opportunity to solidify her commitment to this mission.
Unlike certain other matters that we are discussing in the House this week and over the weeks ahead, this initiative has cross-party support. It has the support of businesses and of our constituents—over 200,000 people have signed the petition. It has the support of so many mental health campaigners across the country. I sincerely hope that all Members on both sides of the House will support it here this afternoon.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). She is right that it is wonderful to be in this place today with the noise dialled down, so that we can work on and think carefully about one of the most important issues in this country. Mental health is the No. 1 challenge for millions of people in this country every day. If we can meet that challenge in some way by working in the collaborative way that she talked about, that is wonderful. I am really pleased that she has secured this debate and that the Minister is here to listen to it. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). The three of us have worked together on a number of issues. Like in any team, there are those who lead from the front and do all the heavy lifting and hard work, and that is definitely not me. I want to say a massive thanks to them for their efforts in getting us here today.
When I came into this place in 2015, I talked about how I wanted to end in this Parliament the stigma around mental health. I have found since then that there is still this—it is hard to understand—air around suicide that people do not want to talk about or address, but it remains the biggest killer of men under 44 in this country. Unless we talk about it, we will not come up with ways that interdict and meet the challenge.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree on securing the debate. Does he agree that we need not only to encourage people to talk through industry schemes such as Mates in Mind; we also need to listen? That is why the move towards mental health first aid workers is so important.
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Lady is right. There is no point in getting people to come forward and talk about mental health, which can be very difficult, if we do not have the services or access to them to help them, after they have made themselves vulnerable in that way. That is why I am so keen to keep our foot to the gas and ensure that we start delivering on this. We have made progress—that is undeniable—but clearly there is a long way to go, and I will come on to that.
I want to address the point about legislation. As someone who does a lot of work in the armed forces community and on the armed forces covenant, I know that people will say, “Why legislate?” I have learnt in this place that we can have a number of good ideas and initiatives that we can encourage people to do but, ultimately, this is too big a challenge to be left to personalities involved in companies at different times. Sometimes we have to legislate for it. This is not a problem for the companies that already do this, but sometimes the most vulnerable people in our communities deserve the Government legislating and letting them know that we are on side.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am sorry that I was not here for the beginning of the speech by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). I was having my own health and wellbeing check with our excellent service here. The practice nurse was particularly keen to know about my stress levels, given the experience we have all had in the last week, but I am good for another few years.
My hon. Friend may know that I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on mindfulness, which is a simple way of looking after employees’ mental health. Before Christmas, we held a seminar here involving military figures. He knows, from his experience, the high level of mental health issues among that group. I am glad to say that the Army is now seriously looking at how this measure can be introduced, and why wouldn’t it? This is a win-win situation: if an employer looks after its employees and its workforce, they tend to do a better job, and they look after the company or Army unit better as well.
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right; the military has come a long way. It gets a hard time, but the Army in particular has come a long way on the importance of mindfulness and how much easier it is to keep a healthy mind than get better from a mental illness. I thank him for all the work he does on that. We all come to this place for different reasons, but there is no doubt that the mental health challenge of a decade and a half of combat operations has ripped apart the circle of friends that I grew up with, so I have a real passion for getting this right.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree says, we need to look at this in a slightly different way in this country. We are very good in this place at talking from the Front Bench about what we are putting into services in terms of money and priority, and that is extremely important, but we need to turn the telescope around and ask what it actually feels like to be in the community waiting for access to child and adolescent mental health services or mental health treatment. That is the true metric of what we do in this place. I strongly encourage the Government to look at that approach.
Why am I so interested in this? As everybody now knows, I have had OCD for a long time. Obviously, I like to pretend that it is some sort of distant memory, but my close friends and family know that it is not. It is much better, but there is no doubt that, if there had been mental health first aid when I was a boy, growing up and going into the military, my life would have been completely changed. We cannot underestimate how important it is to intervene early, when someone is so much more likely to get better. I will never forget the Saturday afternoon when I ended up in the Maudsley, thinking, “How did I end up here? How did this all start?” If policies like this had been talked about 20 years ago, millions of lives would have been very different.
I talk about this because it sends a powerful message: you can get better. People think that they are managing their mental health for the rest of their life, they reach their zenith and that is it. I cannot over-emphasise how wrong that is. Clearly managing a mental health challenge is a difficulty, but it can absolutely be done, and the chances of doing that are exponentially increased by early intervention. If we can get into workplaces and say to people, “We take mental health as seriously as physical health,” we will affect millions of lives, which is ultimately what we come to this place every week to do.
I pay tribute again to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk, who have done a lot of the heavy lifting on this. There are not many people here today, but in some ways, that does not matter. There will be people following this intensely because they have a mental health challenge. They may be 15, 16 or 17-year-old young boys, like I was, who never talk about it and who learn about what is going on through their phone but do not even talk to their parents. When I spoke about my OCD in the Evening Standard, I had loads of phone calls the next day, but the best one was from a 16-year-old boy who said he had never spoken to his parents or anyone about it.
There will be a lot of people watching this debate who were devastated when it was cancelled before Christmas. They are the people we are here for, and that is why people like me speak out. It is not easy to speak about individual issues in this House, but I want to say to boys and girls who are watching this now and may be struggling: don’t think for a minute that because there are not lots of people here, and there is not the raucous shouting that we have seen in the last few days, this is in any way less important to many of us in this place. Just because we are quieter, it does not mean that we do not hear you.
There is a mental health revolution going on in this country—we have seen it start and people are talking about it. The Government have committed to parity of esteem. We are flicking over from meeting one in four mental health needs at the moment to one in three. Clearly there is a big unmet need and we have further to go, but it is an unstoppable direction of travel, and today is another point on that march.
I sincerely hope that the Government can take forward these recommendations. I slightly disagree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree only on one point: parity of esteem does mean something. However, she is right: it does not if people in our communities do not feel it. It is not good enough here to say, “Parity of esteem is a wonderful thing. Haven’t we done well? We’ve put it into Government legislation.” It is meaningless unless the people who use the services actually feel like they are treated in the same way and have the same access to treatments as those with physical health problems. I commend the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk for the march we are taking on this, together with the stuff we have done on money and mental health. In this Parliament of immense turbulence, for those who are watching—the quieter ones, whom I have spoken about—this march will continue. They have some wonderful advocates in this place and we keep going.
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is good to see the subject of mental health in the workplace being discussed this afternoon, and I obviously congratulate colleagues from all parties who have secured the debate. To echo the point made in both speeches so far, given the recent discussions here, it is good that Members can come together and discuss subjects of national significance in a spirit of fraternity.
It seems to me that there are two basic elements to today’s debate: first, how to implore employers to accept their responsibilities to do more; and, secondly, to take the opportunity to showcase good practice in our communities, where employers are stepping up to the challenges in offering mental health first aid.
As we know, the backdrop is that we are increasingly aware of the scale of the mental health challenges we face. For example, one in four of us will experience a mental health issue at some point in our lives, according to the World Health Organisation. As has been mentioned, the report by Lord Dennis Stevenson and Paul Farmer, “Thriving at work”, has highlighted the costs of poor mental health provisions in the workplace. They suggest that some 300,000 people with long-term mental health issues lose their jobs every year, that poor mental health costs employers billions of pounds each year and that the economy in turn loses billions per year as a result.
The numbers are staggering and quite extraordinary, but the subject of our discussion is not really a question of overall economic utility; it is the suffering of our fellow citizens, and what a good society and what good employers should be doing about these profound challenges. We should think of it this way: a Business in the Community publication, “Mental Health at Work”, has found that 15% of employees face dismissal, demotion or disciplinary action after disclosing a mental health issue at work, which could mean that this reality applies to some 1.2 million people of working age in the UK. It has also told us that just 11% of employees felt able to disclose mental health issues to their line manager. These figures are appalling, so things have to change. That is why employers must do more to address these issues.
On the other hand, as I said, we should use this debate to highlight new initiatives where employers are stepping up to meet their responsibilities. I therefore want to reference the workplace mental health work of a company at the heart of my constituency—the Ford Motor Company.
Throughout last year, many Members may have seen or caught sight of the “Elephant in the Transit” film, which the Ford Motor Company put out, which was aired in TV ad breaks, in cinemas and, more generally, across social media in order to raise awareness of mental health issues. It is a short film—I would guess of only 30 seconds—and contains a pretty simple but very smart message. Basically, there are two young, working class lads in a Transit, and between them sits this massive elephant as the lads chat about their plans for the weekend. One clocks that his mate is not quite right—he has learned to see the signs—so he pulls over the truck to talk to him about it all. It is spot-on, and it really is aimed at a key demographic in this area—young, working-class males. In this instance, Ford has teamed up with Time to Change. It has sought to cut through the stigma, especially among young, working-class males, so that we can more openly discuss mental health issues.
This is not an isolated initiative on Ford’s behalf. It has also been working with Mental Health First Aid England to launch a training programme to reduce stigma, to encourage people to speak out more about mental health and to find safe, non-confrontational spaces to talk. The idea is that, through this training, Ford dealers and managers will understand how to act as a first point of contact for a colleague developing or experiencing a mental health issue.
The training is to teach people to spot the signs of mental health issues, offer initial first aid help and guide a person towards the appropriate support, as well as about how to listen non-judgmentally, reassure and respond, even in a crisis. The training can also help stop preventable issues arising by building a supportive culture around mental health. It is to equip Ford’s key people in these roles with the skills to talk about mental health with confidence and without judgment. The way the company want to normalise the topic of mental health among their workers has impressed me, so today we should acknowledge such initiatives.
Ford has also backed the “Where’s Your Head At?” campaign—it was mentioned earlier—which is calling for change in workplace health and safety laws to protect mental health in the same way as physical health. If successful, it will ensure that every workplace provides mental health first aid as well as physical first aid, helping those in need at the earliest possible opportunity. Again, Ford has been working with Mental Health First Aid England for the training. Overall, I think we can agree that it is the responsibility of British employers to ensure that provision for mental health issues in the workplace meets the necessary standards.
I have to admit that I have many times taken chunks out of employers for what they have not done, and that includes the Ford Motor Company many times, compared with what they should be doing. Given that tendency, it is up to me to highlight good practice by the self-same employers. It seems to me that these initiatives by Ford should be acknowledged and put on the record in the debate today. More generally and simply put, it is good that we have time to talk about this subject this afternoon. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me a few minutes to make a few points.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) on securing this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on granting it.
For many, first aid in the workplace has too often in the past been a green box that is kept in the corner and which, if we are lucky, is opened very occasionally when someone cuts a finger or scalds themselves when making a cup of tea. However, it is much more than that: not only can there be more serious physical illnesses to which we have to attend, such as a broken limb or a heart attack, but there are mental health challenges of which we need to be increasingly aware.
Very often, workplaces are highly stressful settings, which can accentuate mental health challenges. It is important that we put in place measures to reduce stress, to help pick up those first signs of mental illness and to ensure that people needing treatment and support receive it as quickly as possible. This is not only vital for those who are feeling unwell, but good for their employers.
I chair the all-party group on first aid, the secretariat for which is provided by St John Ambulance. I was on its management board in Suffolk before I came to this place. Mental health first aid training is increasingly being provided by St John Ambulance, which by the end of 2018 had provided 5,000 people with the skills to become mental health first aiders in their workplace, and this figure is due to rise to 10,000 this year. This is a good start, but it needs to be put in the context of 1 million physical first aiders in the workplace, requalifying on a three-year cycle. There is clearly a lot of work still to do.
I shall first highlight the research carried out by St John Ambulance, which shows clearly why we need to step up our game, and then I will move on to outline some cases that illustrate the benefits of embedding mental health support in the workplace. St John Ambulance carried out two surveys in 2018—one of 1,000 employees responsible for booking general first aid courses, and the other of 800 people who attended general first aid courses. The findings of the first survey prompted a variety of conclusions.
First, one in four people in work have left a job due to mental health problems. A further 43% of people considered leaving a job due to stress or mental ill health, yet fewer than one fifth of the organisations in which they worked had mental health policies in place. Conditions including depression and stress had caused nearly a quarter of respondents to miss work for a day or longer, and six out of 10 people asserted that their employer should do more to address mental health issues.
Individual responses from employees who took part in the research included a variety of comments:
“The company I work for are pretty archaic;”
“I believe my manager would mock me;”
“They recognise it as a valid condition but see it as an inconvenience.”
Nearly two thirds of people said that they would feel uncomfortable asking for a mental health sick day. On a more positive note, more than a third of people said that their employer recognised stress as a valid condition and worked to help, but more than a quarter said that bosses did little or nothing to help. In the second survey, more than half the respondents were unaware that employees have rights if treated unfairly by their bosses on mental health grounds, and nine out of 10 felt that organisations should have a mental health policy.
Both items of research indicate why the recent initiative by the Health and Safety Executive is so important. It has long been assumed that an employer’s responsibility for supporting mental health is covered by a standard risk assessment that takes into account all health and safety needs. In practice, however, due to the stigma attached to mental health, that simply has not been happening, and 44% of people do not feel able to tell their employer when they are feeling anxious or depressed at work, with most citing “embarrassment” as the main barrier.
There is overwhelming evidence of the need to embed a culture of mental health aid and support in the workplace. Last month St John Ambulance hosted a national conference with speakers and delegates drawn from such diverse sectors as construction, banking, retail, education, local government and the armed forces. Case studies included wellness programmes, a universal approach to mental health first-aid training, sleep training, talking groups for people as they tackled changing life circumstances, and the development of positive mental health champions. In one organisation, referrals to counselling by health professionals have fallen by 48% as a result of its initiatives, while another cited a 75% drop in absence due to work-related illness. The obvious impact on the bottom line has enabled senior leadership to buy into those programmes, which are now regarded as crucial to its success.
Having provided physical first-aid training for employers over many years, it is the experience of St John Ambulance that mandatory regulation will be necessary if every organisation is to give mental ill health the attention it deserves. It believes that further work is needed, especially among SMEs, to establish the right framework for such regulation. Extensive consultation will be required, and progress must be made in recognising the necessary impact on employees and employers. The Government must set out a firm timetable through which to consider proposals from experts, employees and employers, and they must consult on proposals for regulations to deliver parity of esteem, as called for by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and implied by the Stevenson and Farmer report, “Thriving at Work”.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
After yet another week of fractious and angry political discourse, what a pleasure it is to work with two honourable friends—I use that term advisedly—the hon. Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on an issue of incredible importance. It is important that those watching or reading about this debate recognise that it is possible for right hon. and hon. Members to focus on important issues such as mental ill health, as well as fractious arguments over Brexit.
I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View for what he said about his experience of OCD. Interestingly, OCD has also affected my family as our oldest son was diagnosed with it as a teenager. He has since spoken about his experience, and I speak with his authority and approval. What the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of people in his position speaking out about such conditions is important. I remember the moment when, as a teenager, Archie said to me, “Why I am the only person who is going mad?” For a parent to hear that from their child is awful and incredibly distressing, and it makes one realise what a teenager must be going through if that is how they feel about their situation. Of course that is an entirely false perspective, because one then realises that so many others are experiencing their own challenges, and when that realisation dawns, it makes it much easier for individuals to speak out. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said and for talking to the press about this issue, because cumulatively that makes a difference.
The Time to Change campaign has been incredibly powerful in helping to normalise mental ill health, and every time someone in a public position speaks out, it becomes a little easier for another teenager to seek help and not be frightened about opening up. I join the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree in acknowledging the work of Natasha Devon, who is a great campaigner for mental health issues, and I thank Bauer Media and Mental Health First Aid England for championing this important cause.
On the cost of mental ill health, I wish to focus first on the cost to the individual, because it is often not recognised by those who do not experience it just how painful and disabling mental ill health can be. If someone is experiencing anxiety, depression or a condition such as OCD, their life is completely dominated by that. They often cannot enjoy life or be happy, and whenever we speak about the economic cost of mental ill health, we must focus on the most important thing, which is the cost to individuals of the ill health that so many experience.
Alongside that, however, there is a significant cost to employers—not just private sector employers, but the public sector, charities and so forth. Health and Safety Executive data show that 57% of days off work through ill health are due to mental ill health of one sort or another, and not confronting that represents an enormous cost to employers. This is not just about time off work, because many people end up falling out of work and on to benefits, and others turn up to work but under-perform—the concept of presenteeism—because they are not feeling on top of their game, or because they are obsessed by anxieties or concerns that prevent them from performing their work responsibilities effectively.
Addressing mental ill health is a win-win-win for everybody, because this issue affects not just individuals, but employers and even the Government, who gain as a result of us taking it more seriously. If someone falls out of work because of mental ill health, they end up claiming benefits, and that is an enormous cost to the Government and also impacts on the NHS. Everybody benefits by us taking this issue more seriously. The question then is how best to achieve an advance. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a very important point when he said that we need to think carefully about how we frame that.
Under existing law, employers are under duties to protect the mental health and wellbeing of their workforce. The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health makes that point very strongly in its brief for this debate. It makes the point that under the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974 and associated regulations, employers are under a duty to manage the psycho-social risk to their employees at work. There is also the duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments where people are suffering from some sort of disability, including mental ill health. I also applaud the Health and Safety Executive for the new guidance it issued in November 2018. For the first time, it includes a section on mental health. That is important. These are all advances worth acknowledging. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Paul Farmer and Lord Stevenson, which was commissioned by the Government. Their report “Thriving at Work” recommends mental health core standards for every employer.
None the less, the first aid legislation is very much framed in terms of physical health. It is very important to establish clearly in legislation—just as we did in the coalition Government, where we legislated for parity of esteem in the NHS—a very important principle for the workplace: an equality in the importance of both physical and mental health in the workplace. I want to stress that it is about much more than just mental health first aid, vital though that is—I totally endorse all the comments made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree.
I want to highlight the potential risks, as the hon. Member for Waveney made clear, of not getting this right. There is a risk of the tick-box exercise, where an employer can just say, “Yes, we have trained someone up in mental health first aid. We’ve done nothing else, but we have ticked the box and therefore we have met the regulation.” That would be a failure for all of us if that was the outcome of this exercise.
The more fundamental point is that the approach we should be taking is about preventing ill health in the workplace. The whole focus should be on creating healthy workplaces, where people are treated with dignity and respect. It is vital that employees across the workforce have the opportunity to raise their awareness and understanding of mental health. Alongside that, however, we have to think about the causes of stress and anxiety in the workplace. Often, it is due to unhealthy workplaces, where people are not respected and where there is a bullying culture. Depressingly, we see that quite often in the NHS. That has to be confronted, because that is the cause of so many people feeling anxious, distressed and depressed as a result of what happens at work.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are very simple things companies can do—BT and quite a few others do this—to improve work-life balance? For example, they can ensure that people do not have to answer emails late at night or over weekends, or, when people have bereavements, they have a sensible bereavement policy that supports the individual, rather than just allows for a number of days for an individual to get over it.
Norman Lamb
That is an incredibly helpful intervention. I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is about getting the whole culture in the workplace right on flexible working, understanding that parents sometimes have responsibilities to their children and carers have responsibility for an elderly loved one. Not working ludicrous hours of the day and night is also incredibly important. How we achieve the legislative change is very important. It is vital that we raise awareness through mental health first aid, but we also need a fundamental focus on the prevention of mental ill health in the workplace.
In the remaining minutes, I want to focus on some of the things we did in the west midlands. After I was chucked out of the Department of Health by the electorate in 2015, I was asked to chair a commission on mental health in the west midlands. Our whole focus was on how to prevent mental ill health and take a more public mental health approach. We focused particularly on the workplace. We first focused on how to get people who had experienced mental ill health and had been out of work—often for years and years—back into work. Work is actually good for people. Meaningful work, where we gain a sense of dignity and self-respect, is really important. We are undertaking—with £8.5 million of Government support, I should say—a randomised control trial, applying a strong evidence-based approach called individual placement and support. We give people intensive support to get them ready for employment, get them into a proper job and then support them in that job. We are looking at how we can apply that in primary care, so we capture people earlier, and give them access to someone who can train them and support them for employment. We want to change the mind set of GPs, so they are not just thinking about the sickness of their patient but how they can help them to recover and get back into work—that is critical.
I hope that as a result of the randomised control trial, we will be able to learn lessons which we can then apply across the country. If we can get lots of people with severe and enduring mental ill health back into work, we will achieve something very significant. Sadly, at the moment this extraordinarily strong, evidence-based approach is the exception rather than the rule. Most people across the country do not get access to it. The Government have made a commitment to double the numbers, but that is still a very small proportion of the total. It needs to be expanded rapidly.
Mr Kevan Jones
Is the problem that mental wellbeing is not hardwired into Government policy? Some policies, for example Department for Work and Pensions work capability tests and others, actually work against individuals. Voluntary work is very useful in getting people back into work, but at the moment there are limits around what people can do while they are still on benefits. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that some flexibility on that would help this process?
Norman Lamb
I absolutely do. I was going to say, “Don’t talk to me about the work capability assessment, because it will get me very angry.” We need reform of the welfare system to help to facilitate people returning to work, rather than just treating them as second-class citizens, as it often does.
Luciana Berger
I am listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, which are very pertinent. On people being in work or not in work if they are affected by a mental health condition, I was struck to learn that for my local mental health trust, Mersey Care, which provides services for the whole of Merseyside, the latest available figures—not the most recent financial year, but the previous one—show that just 3% of the patients under its care, in both the community and in in-patient services, were in any form of work. That figure is similar for patients under the care of many mental health trusts across our country. Does he believe that people outside this place might not be aware of that fact, but it is staggering and should concern us all? We should be doing everything possible to support people with mental ill health conditions into the workplace.
Norman Lamb
I totally agree. My plea to the Government is that, as we hopefully commit to spending more on mental health, we spend at least part of that on preventive measures. If we can get someone into work, it makes a whole difference to their lives. The evidence shows that many people who are helped back into work are then able to stay in work; reducing the burden on the NHS and the benefits system, but giving people dignity and self-respect.
Another initiative we are undertaking in the west midlands is the wellbeing premium. It was my idea, which again is being supported by the Government and I am grateful to them. The idea, which we are trialling over a year, is to give an incentive to employers to improve the way in which they support people in work by training their line managers—the most critical thing one can do—and see whether we can reduce the number of people who end up on sickness absence. The idea is to give them a temporary incentive for one or two years, for example by a reduction in the business rate or a reduction in national insurance payments. If by that we can reduce sickness absence, the number of people falling out of work through ill health and the problem of presenteeism, everyone benefits. It will be interesting to see how that succeeds.
In the west midlands, we are also pursuing the thrive at work commitment, which is trying to build a social movement of companies that all sign up to a commitment to up the level of support that they provide people, changing the culture in workplaces. A toolkit is provided to companies, and that could make a substantial difference across the region.
The action plan also has a commitment to train up 500,000 people across the west midlands in mental health first aid. That is a totally different approach to what we have been used to, which is an NHS very much focused on sickness and providing treatment for sickness after what is often a very long wait, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View pointed out. Instead, the whole focus of the system should be on prevention. If we do that, we can achieve a real breakthrough.
To conclude, let us amend the legislation and get mental health first aid to become the standard in every workplace. Critically, that should be part of a much wider programme that is focused on prevention and on building good healthy workplaces with the right culture, where people have respect, are engaged in the work they are doing and are treated with dignity. With that commitment is a dedication to the work they are doing and a commitment to raise awareness of mental ill health among all staff and to train managers properly. Through a combination of regulation and incentives, we can make a real difference for people.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I rise to speak briefly in support of the motion. In doing so, I congratulate the three Members who brought the application for the debate to the Backbench Business Committee. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for the work she has done over a long period on this important issue.
As we know, poor mental health impacts on so many people across our country at various points in their lives. As we have heard, it will likely impact on one in four of us to a varying degree at some point in our lives. We know that more support is required to help people suffering from mental ill health in the workplace—support to halt people from deteriorating and to help them back to better mental health. I took part in a mental health first aid training course in a previous employment. It was a worthwhile experience that opened my eyes to the things to look out for and put me in a better position to provide help and support to colleagues. I recommend it to anybody.
I fully appreciate—it was the reason for this debate—that not all employers across the UK offer this training to employees, and that should change. Evidence suggests that 83% of employees in workplaces where mental health first aid is offered have seen an improvement in signposting to mental health support. That is significant. We also know that it helps anyone experiencing a period of poor mental health to talk. From speaking to organisations such as Merthyr and the Valleys Mind in my constituency, I know how important it is to have that opportunity to talk to someone. That is hugely important in the context of work colleagues, so for employers to treat support for mental health on a parity with physical health would be a big step forward. As we have heard a number of times during the debate, talking would also help raise awareness across society and help in some way to end the stigmas of the past.
We know that periods of mental ill health can affect anyone, regardless of age, gender or background. We know that there are serious issues with post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health issues in our armed forces. We know that the issue affects a lot of men, particularly young men. Suicide is still the biggest cause of death for men under 45. If there was more awareness, particularly in workplaces, and especially those that are male-dominated, it would do much to support those suffering from mental ill health and provide an opportunity to intervene at an early stage.
Having more support for mental health in the workplace makes sense from a financial perspective, as workplace mental health issues cost the UK economy billions of pounds a year. However, while the financial position is of concern, the cost to individuals, their families and their quality of life is much more concerning. We know that some 300,000 people with long-term mental health conditions lose their jobs every year. Left untreated, mental ill health impacts on a person’s relationships with friends and family and ultimately their quality of life. As I have highlighted, many have said in recent years that mental health should have the same focus as physical health, although for a variety of reasons that does not yet appear to be happening.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 made it a legal necessity for workplaces to train someone in medical first aid. If we are to have parity of mental and physical health, we need to make changes. As the motion states, the Government should change the law to provide a clear direction to employers regarding their responsibility not only for physical health but for mental health.
Workplaces would benefit from having trained mental health first aiders. It would provide not only a financial benefit to the economy, but a positive impact on many people’s wellbeing. I hope the Government will take note and act quickly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on securing this debate, and I thank her for setting the scene so well. I thank right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the Chamber for their valuable contributions. I echo the comments of others in the Chamber about what a joy it is to have a debate on a subject on which we can all agree. We agree on the strategy and the way forward. I am reminded of the programme I watch on a Sunday night—“Call the Midwife”. Perhaps others watch it, too. There is always a real tragedy at the beginning of the programme, but at the end, things always turn out well. I hope that Brexit turns out the same. We will see how it goes.
Most of us in the Chamber have a good understanding of the impact that mental health issues have on people’s emotional and physical state. In the short term, mental health problems alter personality traits and the behaviour of individuals. In the long term, they can lead to suicidal thoughts. In the worst-case scenario, they can eventually drive a person to commit suicide. There were 318 suicides registered in Northern Ireland in 2015, which was the highest since records began in 1970. People often have trouble coping with mental health issues, which of course will translate into their work life. Mental health cannot be compartmentalised. That is not the key to working and living with mental health problems.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is too tempting not to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware—I am sure he is—that Northern Ireland has a particular issue? When I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I was shocked to see that even though the violence of the troubles was 20 or 30 years ago, there is still a legacy of mental illness from those times.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Gentleman has obviously had sight of my notes, because I was going to refer to that point later. He is absolutely right. The 30-year terrorist campaign has a legacy, and it affects us. I will mention that in my comments.
When I was first elected in 2010, I took in a new part of my constituency, Ballynahinch, which I very quickly found out had some serious problems in relation to suicides. They were mostly among young people, and unfortunately they seemed to be cluster suicides, if I can use that terminology. A number of young people took their lives, but the community very quickly reacted in Killyleagh and Ballynahinch. Church groups, community groups and interested individuals came together and addressed those issues. With Government Departments, they helped to reduce the level of suicides. It was particularly stressful to be confronted with that as an MP so early in his parliamentary term.
One in six workers suffer from anxiety, depression and unmanageable stress each year, causing 74% of people with a mental health problem to take more than a year out of work. In 2015, 18 million days were lost to sickness absence caused by mental health conditions. Mental health issues affect both the work and the lifestyle of countless people. Urgent action must be taken to educate employers about the difficulties that result from mental illnesses, mainly to help those who are struggling in the workplace but also to benefit those employers, for whom that may mean cost outlays. It follows that not only is a happier worker a more productive worker, but there should be a natural decrease in sickness periods. Other Members have mentioned that.
If employers are to take steps to promote and improve people’s wellbeing in their workplaces, they need to be able to identify an instance in which someone may be struggling with mental health problems, but it is not always easy to do so. I understand that, because I have talked to many people who seem to be smiley, jokey and happy, and may be the life and soul of the party, but when they go home they are very different. Sometimes we do not really know what is happening. In the workplace, there needs to be someone who can see through the façade to the real person underneath.
Some 49% of workers said that they would not be comfortable disclosing a mental health issue at work. Others in the workplace should be educated to ensure that they can recognise individuals who are dealing with such problems. They should be trained in mental health issues—and that should include mental health first aid—so that the workplace can become a positive environment.
Given that two in five employers admit that they have seen a rise in mental health problems, it is important for workplaces to foster a culture of support and openness for those needing help, making them feel reassured about seeking assistance from fellow employees. The Scottish Association for Mental Health, backed by the Scottish Government, has adopted a programme on physical activity. I can say with all honesty and sincerity that the Scottish Government, and their Health Department in particular, lead on health issues in general, including mental health issues. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) will probably mention this, but I think it important for us to recognise good practice wherever it may be, and I hope that we can replicate it in other parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Better together, that is what I always say.
I believe that the Department for Work and Pensions must take the lead, and that all workplaces should be supplied with a mental health toolkit as standard practice. It should be issued not just to those who request it, but to all who are paying tax for a business. That could be modelled on the content of the current publications by Public Health England, Business in the Community and the Samaritans—what a good job they do to address these issues. Every one of us will know what really tremendous work they do in our constituencies, and I cannot praise the volunteers highly enough. To engage employers to participate in initiatives such as “Time to Change” and be educated further on the subject of mental health, there must be a move from the Department, and help must be garnered from it.
It has been suggested that as well as becoming involved with mental health organisations, companies should review their absence policies and make keeping-in-touch arrangements, as evidence suggests that 12.7% of all sickness absence days in the UK can be attributed to mental health conditions. There must be tools to enable employers to create an employee assistance programme. I have read research indicating that in the few businesses that use such a programme, 25% of employees say that their organisation encourages staff to talk openly about their mental health issues. Research shows that the more people do that, the easier it becomes to deal with their problems. We are always hearing that “it’s good to talk”, and that is so true, but many of the people we meet may not have anyone to talk to.
Such programmes not only help the individuals who are suffering with mental health problems, but benefit companies. Better mental health support in the workplace can save UK businesses up to £8 billion per year. If we do the job right we can save money, and so can the businesses, because they will have a happier and more productive workforce.
Three quarters of all mental health problems are established by the age of 24, when people are entering long-term careers. That is another factor that we should recognise at that early stage. As many as 300,000 people a year lose their jobs because companies are not sure how to provide the help and support that they need. In the past year, 74% of people have felt stressed as they have been overwhelmed or unable to cope owing to the demands of their career. Managers should be able to spot the signs of common mental health conditions, but that happens only when they receive dedicated training. Others have referred to the need for such knowledge of what is happening. Many managers are blind to, or uneducated about, the symptoms of mental illnesses, and it is all too easy in the busy working world to be consumed by a goal and not to see the elements that are in play around us. We would never send an engineer into a dangerous environment without the necessary training, so why should we assume that companies can automatically notice when an employee’s health is plummeting?
I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are like the rest of us in this regard: we often eat at our desks. However, that does not mean that everyone else has to do it. We have to recognise that sometimes it is good to get away from our desks and go for a walk, and have our minds on other things for a time. The benefits of regular breaks and eating lunch away from desks, and creating a positive workplace state of mind, should be promoted to those who have a busy life and seek to cram things into every second at the risk of their mental health.
As we heard a moment ago from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), Northern Ireland in particular is struggling with the issue of mental health owing to a lack of resources. When compared with 17 other countries, Northern Ireland was shown to have the second highest rates of mental health illness, 25% higher than those in England. That is certainly largely due to 30 years of the troubles and the legacy of the terrorist campaign, but it is more than that. We must address those issues and do better in enabling people to lead high-quality lives with the tools to handle stress and daily life. A massive step in that regard would be creating mental first aid as standard in workplaces.
Workplace mental ill health costs employers about £26 billion a year, and many places are struggling to find the large amount of money that is needed to improve their awareness of mental health. A report for the NHS found that mental illness accounts for nearly half of all ill health in people younger than 65, and that only a quarter of people in need of treatment currently get it.
This is a health issue, but it is important for four Departments to come together with a strategy, because it is not just about health. It should also involve the DWP, the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Companies need to be given more support and funds, as does the NHS to help those who are suffering in the long term, as it is currently unable to provide the materials needed. Action needs to be taken, because the number of sick days due to mental health issues is increasing rapidly owing to negative work environments: 89% of employees with mental health problems say that it affects their work lives hugely. That needs to change, for the betterment not only of business and the economy but of those who are struggling with mental health issues.
I look forward to the comments of both the Minister and the shadow Minister. I am convinced—as, I think, is everyone in the Chamber—that we shall hear a positive and helpful response from the Minister.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Let me first praise the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for securing the debate and for making an excellent speech. Let me also congratulate her, because she may well be the first person to have a motion passed in the House this week: every other motion seems to have been voted down.
I want to talk about some of my personal experiences. Before I came to this place, I was a trade union activist. When dealing with mental health issues, I had to remind employers of the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and reasonable adjustments, and to make them understand the nature of a particular condition and what can happen as a result of it. I used to encourage managers to ensure that first aiders were aware that someone might have such a condition. In particular, they needed to know if an employee was taking a specific medication because of the possible side effects. Medication can have an impact on behaviour and performance.
The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) produced some shocking statistics on issues such as dismissal. In my view, much of that is due to aggressive management policies on attendance, not just in the private sector but in the public sector. When someone has been absent for a certain number of days, that can trigger an interview leading to the removal of sick pay or other forms of disciplinary action. That makes people go into what has been referred to as presenteeism. People also feel that, because they have been off for a certain number of days, if they are off another day, they will get the treatment. If we are going to have attendance management policies, they should be based on facts; they should not be aggressive and done just on the basis of trigger points.
I associate myself with the remarks by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) about bullying. Bullying and harassment in the workplace is an issue and impacts on people’s mental health. So I strongly support the motion’s proposals to ensure that first aiders have adequate training. That is very much encouraged in trade unionised workplaces. I know hon. Members across the House will agree with me that trade unions play a vital role in trade unionised workplaces, ensuring that an employee with a mental health condition is looked after and given the proper support and that employers understand their conditions. This reminds me that one of the favourite books in the Glasgow Unison office was the “MIMS” book, which explained every piece of medication and their side effects. It was used as a tool to explain to employers the behaviour of those on medication or with a mental health condition and other problems that can arise, and to explain how to address those in a way that was fair and appropriate.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) encouraged me to promote the health service in Scotland and the 10-year mental health strategy, and I will talk briefly about that. Between January and June last year, there were a number of courses. There were 43 one-day courses on healthy workplaces for NHS managers, and 552 people were trained. There was training for trainers; 28 people are now delivering more courses. There were eight workshops on resilience and wellbeing; 97 people were trained on that. There were also three managers’ competency workshops; 36 people were trained on that.
In Scotland there is a 10-year mental health strategy. It seems to be working. Out of 40 actions, 13 are complete and 26 are progressing and ongoing. These training programmes are vital, as the hon. Gentleman said. The workplace training programmes deal with topics such as surviving the pressures of work-related stress, managing organisational stress and getting the Health and Safety Executive on board with those arrangements.
There is an opportunity for the UK Government to look at their good work plan as well in relation to ensuring that mental health issues in the workplace are dealt with appropriately. Issues to do with insecure work are not yet being tackled by the Government. That can have a real impact on someone’s mental health and wellbeing. There are issues about how the DWP deals with some of these issues, which I hope the Government will look at. For example, someone who refuses a zero-hours contract job could be sanctioned under universal credit, but if someone is on a legacy benefit they would not be sanctioned. The pressures of the DWP system of benefit conditionality can often be punitive.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
I often get letters from people on zero-hours contracts. They might, for argument’s sake, get up at 5 o’clock in the morning and spend an hour cycling to a job only to find out there is not a day’s work for them. That puts them under such stress and causes so much more anxiety, and pressures their mental health. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is just one of the drawbacks of zero-hours contracts? We hear such a lot about how wonderful it is that everybody is in work, but if we scratch the surface we see it is not actually quite that simple.
Chris Stephens
I strongly agree. I do not know if the hon. Lady has had the opportunity to look at the Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill, which I have introduced and deals with some of those issues. People on zero-hours contracts or working parents turn up at work with an expectation that they are going to be working for a certain amount of hours—four, perhaps—and are told they will instead be working for eight hours and then have to deal with childcare; or they turn up and, as the hon. Lady said, find they are not required that day. That must have an impact on someone’s mental health and wellbeing.
I ask the Government to look at the punitive measures in terms of benefit conditionality. That is also a recipe for people to be recycled into unsuitable, potentially exploitative work just to avoid a sanction.
I support the motion. I ask the Government to look at these issues about the clear and direct impact on the mental health of workers and possibly changing some policies in that regard. I thank all Members who have spoken so far for their excellent contributions.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on securing this debate and pay tribute to her for the excellent work she does in this area. I also thank the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) for helping to secure this important debate, and particularly pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for sharing his personal experiences, which are very powerful. My mother suffered with OCD all her life and regularly said to me, “If I had a damaged leg I would have got help and sympathy, and there would have been no stigma attached.” So I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue.
Debates such as this with a particular end in sight—to raise awareness and end stigma—are important. I join with Members, in this wonderful spirit of co-operation in all corners of the House, in saying to anyone out there suffering with mental ill health and to their family members that many of us in this place are sincerely dedicated to effecting good change.
We have heard powerful contributions from all sides of the House on the impact that mental health issues can have on people’s lives, and indeed on our economy. For the one in four people who will experience mental health issues, there are serious consequences in all areas of their lives, including at work. It is estimated that 5 million workers, nearly one in seven, are experiencing a mental health condition. Women in full-time employment are twice as likely to have a common mental health problem as full-time employed men, and 300,000 people with a long-term mental health condition lose their job every year. The human cost of this is hard to calculate; these are people who have lost their livelihoods because they cannot get the support they need.
While the human cost is difficult to quantify, we do know that there is an enormous economic cost overall. For the whole of the UK it costs up to £99 billion a year. The Mental Health Foundation found that over 12% of sick days in the UK can be attributed to mental health conditions. The Health and Safety Executive reported that 15.4 million working days are lost each year to work-related stress, anxiety and depression—more than are lost to physical ill health. Mental ill health hits smaller businesses hard, and research from the insurance sector found that it costs small and medium-sized enterprises £30,000 in recruitment costs, training time and lost productivity to replace a staff member. There is another side to presenteeism. As the TUC points out, UK workers with mental health problems also contribute to the economy, adding £226 billion to the UK’s GDP in 2016 alone. They are contributing despite living with mental ill health, so it is only right, at the very least, that society gives something back to them. Despite them often suffering illness, their work supports our economy, so our society must support them.
Mental health does not exist in isolation. It is fundamentally bound up with how we live our lives, and the stresses and strains of modern life take their toll. In my constituency of Burnley, one in five people report feeling anxious or depressed, which is higher than the national average. As many Members have said, incidents of suicidal thoughts and outright acts of suicide have risen worryingly since 2000, with the number of people who self-harm more than doubling over the intervening period. Workplace conditions can be responsible for such strains. Indeed, three quarters of adults say that they are stressed about work. As a former employer, I say to employers out there that the best thing that they can do to improve productivity and profitability is to invest in the health and wellbeing of their workforce, including mental health, which is paramount. Sadly, mental health support is severely lacking for many workers and access to services that prevent mental health problems is getting worse.
Mental health services are still a long way from reaching the promised parity of esteem. Mental health trusts have less money to spend on patient care in real terms than they did in 2012. That underfunding is leading to delays for people who are trying to access services. In some areas of the country, people are waiting four months to access basic talking therapies—four months without the support that they need to stay in work. When it comes to mental health in the workplace, as research from MIND and others has shown, we can actually put a number on the cost of failing to fund mental health services adequately. Poor mental health at work is estimated to cost the taxpayer between £24 billion and £27 billion a year, which is made up of NHS costs, benefit costs and lost tax revenue. Those costs can be avoided if our mental health services are properly funded to give people the support they need.
Just as work can be the cause of stress and, ultimately, mental ill health, work is also where mental ill health can manifest itself. Today’s discussion has shown us one way that support at work could be provided. Mental health first aid, much like physical first aid, can provide a first port of call when mental health problems arise. We have heard already today about the value of early intervention. My hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) and for Liverpool, Wavertree raised specific examples of where companies have invested proactively in employing and training mental first aid workers, and we heard that Thames Water has seen a three quarters reduction in sickness absence related to mental health issues.
It is clear that mental health first aid can work, but there is no duty on employers to provide it. Labour’s view is that there should be. In 2012, the Government encouraged employers to offer mental health first aid, but we still have not seen it taken up as widely as it should have been. The amount of Government resources for mental health first aid training is clearly not enough to embed mental health first aid. Last year, the review of workplace mental health by Paul Farmer and Lord Stevenson recommended that all employers put in place systems to support workers with mental health conditions. As we have heard today, mental health first aid can play a key role in that. At the time, the Government accepted the recommendations of the Farmer and Stevenson review, including those about the role of employers. Will the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking to put the recommendations into practice?
The debate today has called for a change in the law, and Labour joins that call. The Government must come forward with proposals to support employers to ensure that mental health first aid is provided. This matter is too important to be left to the good will of employers. Legislation is required.
Mental health first aid alone will not be enough, however. Its role will also be to refer people on to professional mental health services when that is appropriate. Mental health first aid is not a solution when the wait for professional mental health services could be months. It must be part of a wider network of support, alongside clinical services that give people appropriate and timely support. If this Government are serious about tackling the burning injustice of mental ill health, there must be less tinkering around the edges, and a comprehensive new system of support that can intervene as soon as possible when problems emerge. The human cost and economic impact of what is becoming a mental health epidemic can no longer be ignored, and the Government must demonstrate that they take this seriously and act now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
I should like to thank all the contributors to the debate. It has been marked by a lot of enthusiasm and passionate advocacy in support of improved mental health. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) for securing the debate and for bringing their characteristic ambitious agendas into play, alongside their well-informed and passionate advocacy on behalf of them. It can often be challenging to respond to all three of those Members, but on this occasion I have really enjoyed listening to their contributions and I agreed with much of what they said.
We all share the same objective, which is to secure support as early as possible for people who are suffering mental ill health and, more specifically, to enable more people with mental ill health to stay in work. That is good for their health—as long as it is good work and they are well supported—but it is also good for the economy when more people are encouraged to work. That was clearly illustrated by the figures cited by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree for those receiving care from Mersey Care, which bring into stark relief the size of the challenge. They show that only 3% of those patients are in work, which is something we should all reflect on. It underlines the importance of ensuring that we get better at supporting people who are suffering mental health challenges and at encouraging them into work.
I am pleased to be joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). She is also responsible for the Health and Safety Executive, which obviously has a big role to play in this agenda. She has been listening carefully to all Members’ contributions today. She and I are united in an objective to ensure that we keep more people with all kinds of disability in work, and that we get those who are currently excluded from the workforce into it. We have a wide package of measures that we are taking forward in that regard, some of which have been referred to today.
The Government are committed to building a country that works for everyone, and that must include ensuring that disabled people and people with mental health conditions can go as far as their talents can take them. Too many people with a mental health condition are unable to do that, and that is a burning injustice that must be tackled. As the right hon. Member for North Norfolk pointed out, people who are unemployed for more than 12 weeks are between four and 10 times more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety. That statistic illustrates why it is good for society, as well as for the individual, that we tackle this issue. The good news is that staying in or returning to work after a period of mental ill health really does aid mental health recovery. It really does make perfect sense.
Norman Lamb
The Minister will be aware of the objective in the five year forward view to double the number of people who get access to individual placement and support. Can she indicate how that programme is going? If she cannot do so now, will she write to me?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I can say that we are making progress, but I would prefer to write to the right hon. Gentleman with more details, if I may. I have seen some of that individual placement and support in operation, and it is hugely inspiring. In those mental health trusts that are giving one-to-one support, people are finding that the reward and discipline of going to work really does aid their recovery, even in some of the most challenging cases. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with more information on that.
Mr Kevan Jones
Will the Minister liaise with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions? As I said to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), voluntary work is a helpful access point for people who want to get back into work, and the current limitations on people being allowed to do certain voluntary work hinder some who want to take that route into work.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work agrees too. Employers are often risk-averse about using voluntary work, and we in government need to ensure that we are making it easy for people to apply for those routes. My hon. Friend says she will write to the right hon. Gentleman on that matter.
A number of points have been raised in this debate. On the issue of mental health first aid in schools, I can advise the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is not in her place, that the Government have a commitment to ensuring that at least one member of staff in each primary and secondary school receives mental health first aid training. We have currently reached 1,537 schools with that training.
I am delighted to hear from my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas). Like him, I am well aware of much of Ford’s activity, and it is good to hear what it has been doing in this regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) highlighted the work of St John Ambulance in promoting mental health first aid and, again, I commend its work. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made the excellent point that this is a cross-governmental issue. I have mentioned DWP, but the five year forward view carries the message that this issue must be tackled across Government, and we remain focused on delivering exactly that.
The Prime Minister has set out an ambitious set of reforms to improve mental health. We have heard references to parity of esteem, and I reiterate to all hon. Members that the fact that parity of esteem is written into legislation is not the end; it is just the start. The truth is that, in delivering true parity of esteem, we have to manage a programme of behavioural change throughout our services and, indeed, throughout society. Frankly, none of us should ever be complacent about whether we have achieved it. Parity of esteem will take a lot of time, and it is great to see just how much energy is being applied to it.
We have heard a number of references to Time to Change, and it is clear that the cultural transformation in society has been massively aided by Time to Change and that destigmatisation is really helping with delivery. None the less, we have a big role to play in service provision. We are creating 21,000 new posts in the mental health workforce. We are implementing the first waiting time ambitions for mental health so that people have faster access to the care they need. We have recently published the first review of mental health legislation in a number of years. And, of course, we are massively improving early intervention by investing in more services in schools.
We are investing more through the 10-year plan, and the Prime Minister has announced that the NHS budget will grow by over £20 billion. In turn, in the long-term plan published last week, the NHS confirmed that there will be a comprehensive expansion of mental health services, with an additional £2.3 billion in real terms by 2023-24. The ambition is that that will give 380,000 more adults access to psychological therapies and 345,000 more children and young people greater support in the next five years.
We are ambitious, although I do not pretend that, by putting it into law, we have suddenly achieved parity of esteem. We are on a journey in how we commission and deliver services and, of course, in how we behave across society. There is still much to do, not least in the workforce. Destigmatising mental ill health is contributing to understanding and challenging the prejudice and stigma, but we still need to do more.
We have heard much reference to the Farmer-Stevenson review. The Prime Minister appointed them to advise us on how employers can better support all employees to remain and thrive in work. We set out a broad-ranging strategy further to support disabled people and people with health conditions, including mental health ones, to enter into and thrive in work. We did that through our response, where we accepted all those recommendations; indeed, the leadership council to deliver that met only this morning. The work and health unit, which I lead jointly with the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, will be overseeing progress on those recommendations, which range from short-term deliverables to longer-term reform. That will include looking at potential legislation in due course.
The key Thriving at Work recommendation is that all employers, regardless of size or industry, should adopt six core standards that lay the basic foundations for an approach to workplace mental health. The review also recommended that all public sector employers, and private sector companies with more than 500 employees, deliver mental health enhanced standards. Those include increasing transparency and accountability through internal and external reporting of their performance against those standards. The Prime Minister accepted those recommendations that apply across the civil service and NHS England. The civil service, as an employer of 420,000 employees, really should be leading by example on this. Equally, the NHS, as both the provider of services and as a large employer, should be leading the way.
The Government have also taken action to work with partners to develop a framework to support organisations to record and report their performance on disability and mental health in the workplace. Last November, we published that voluntary framework, which highlights transparency and reporting as the effective levers in driving the cultural change we need to develop. But we know that every line manager, supervisor and leader has a crucial role to play in supporting employees to stay well and stay in work, which is why the work and health unit is also working with partners to identify the support and skills that line managers need, across all sizes of organisation, to create inclusive and supportive workplace environments. So we are exploring how we in government can share those examples of best practice, so that all employers get better at this. Many of them will recognise that they need the tools to do the job, because no one knows what they do not know, and we in government have a role to play in spreading that good practice.
We recognise that mental health first aid has a role to play in the Government’s ambitious strategy to transform workplace mental health. Mental health first aid is a helpful training resource to educate people to care not only for others, but for themselves. It also helps to improve understanding about mental health and mental illness; to build that culture and better understanding within organisations; and to encourage people to stay well and get the support they need to manage any mental health symptoms and problems. I was also struck by what the right hon. Member for North Norfolk said: on its own, it is not enough. We would not want to have legislation that became a floor of service in mental health.
A number of references have been made to Thames Water and its success in delivering mental health first aid, all of which is true, but mental health first aid is just part of its embedding a supportive workplace culture for those with mental ill health; it is not the only tool that the company uses. It has introduced mental health first aiders across the business, but it has also expanded its internal clinical occupational health team to support the business in case management, health screening, health surveillance and well-being. The occupational health team now processes an average of 100 referrals a month, 98% of which are for non-work-related issues. Up to 80% of the cases referred every month are for those still in work, which shows that people are accessing longer-term care; this is about keeping them in work, rather than just their getting mental health first aid. We need to be careful about honing in on one simple measure of supporting mental health in the workplace, rather than encouraging a more holistic culture of supporting wellbeing.
I can also advise the House that the Health and Safety Executive, working together with Mental Health First Aid England, has recently published revised guidance for employers on their compliance with the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981. The guidance clarifies for employers the existing requirement to consider mental health alongside physical health when undertaking a first aid needs assessment. The findings from the needs assessment will help direct employers to decide what measures they need to put in place.
The advice of the Health and Safety Executive is that the Stevenson and Farmer review recommendations go way beyond the provision of mental health first aid. The Government’s view is that the best way to secure employer action, to enable those experiencing mental ill health to remain and thrive in work, is to engage with employers to adopt a comprehensive approach based on the Thriving at Work mental health standards. Mental health first aid is not an exclusive way of delivering employer action, but it can form part of it.
To improve information and advice for employers, we are supporting Mind and the Royal Foundation to continue developing their mental health at work online gateway, which we launched on 11 September 2018. The online platform is aimed at employers, senior management and line managers but is accessible to anyone, and it helps them to find help and support for colleagues, to challenge stigma and to learn more about mental health in the workplace. The guided search tool helps with the development of toolkits, blogs and case studies to help everyone in their journey to improve the workplace. Mental Health at Work is a UK-wide initiative that supports people across all workplaces, in all sectors, of all backgrounds, and in all regions.
In conclusion, by working with our partners, including health professionals and employers, this Government are working to change culture and professional practice fundamentally, to tackle poor mental health and to ensure that disabled people and people with health conditions can reach their full potential, not only in the workplace but across society as a whole.
I thank all Members for their contributions and for their interest in the subject. We need to continue to discuss the issues and to encourage good practice. We have heard many good examples today, but we need to consider debating the issues so that we genuinely foster a culture at work that supports people with disabilities and with mental ill health to get jobs and to stay in work.
Luciana Berger
I want to thank and put on the record my gratitude to colleagues who have joined us and made contributions this afternoon. I appreciate that we are extremely busy with Brexit proceedings, so I am most grateful to everyone who has made the time to be here for this important debate. I also thank those who have made interventions. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—I call them friends because we have worked very closely together on this and other related mental health matters—as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and the Front Benchers, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) and the Minister, for their responses.
I hope that my opening speech and the personal, passionate and informed speeches of other Members on both sides of the House have made clear that there is a robust moral, social and economic case for a change to the law to place on employers a legal obligation to make provision for employees to be trained in mental health first aid, in addition to the training they already have to provide for physical health first aid. That is the crux of the issue. If we expect and require businesses with 25 employees or more, including in the public and charitable sectors, to train at least one person in physical health first aid, an equal requirement should be extended to the provision of mental health first aid, if we are serious about the principle of equality for mental health.
Having listened closely to the remarks and representations that have been made, I appreciate that this should not be a tick-box exercise. The proposal is not going to fix the many challenges in mental health services and it is by no means a replacement for clinical professionals, who do a very important job, or the only thing that should happen in workplaces. It is an additional measure. I listened carefully to the Minister, who said that our workplaces should have a holistic culture of wellbeing; of course that should be the case, but the proposed provision should not be viewed in isolation.
I, along with the right hon. Member for North Norfolk, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, and just under 210,000 signatories to the “Where’s Your Head At” petition are asking the Government to enact this legislative change, to expand the legal responsibility of employers to make provision to train employees in mental first aid as well as physical first aid, and to make that positive and decisive step towards ensuring parity of esteem—parity of esteem was enshrined in law seven years ago in the Health and Social Care Act 2012—between physical and mental health in this country.
I do not think that we can be seen as impatient, as it was seven years ago that that principle was put into law. I and many others see this as one step—not the only step—that we should make. It is just one of the six principles proposed in the Thriving at Work report, which was a really important piece of work that was published one year and three months ago. This is just one step in that suite of tools at the disposal of businesses and organisations to make that difference.
I say to the Minister that it was the manifesto commitment of her party to bring forward this change. Having listened carefully to what she has said today, I can say that, obviously, she has not made that commitment yet, but, going forward, I urge her to make that change in the near future as it is one thing that could really make a difference.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that the UK is facing a mental health crisis; further notes that, according to the Independent Review into Mental Health in the Workplace 2017 commissioned by the Prime Minister, each year 300,000 people with long-term mental health conditions lose their job; recognises that Centre for Mental Health research shows presenteeism from mental health is estimated to cost the economy £15.1 billion per annum; acknowledges this same research shows it costs the economy £8.4 billion per annum for mental health absenteeism; considers that a recent poll by OnePoll found that 38 per cent of people reported being stressed about work; observes that the Health and Safety Act 1974 made it a legal necessity for workplaces to train someone in medical first aid; and calls on the Government to change this law via secondary legislation to provide clarity that an employer’s first aid responsibilities cover both physical and mental health and to add a requirement for workplaces to train mental health first aiders.
Children’s Social Care
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered children’s social care in England.
First, let me declare my interest in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Secondly, let me say how delighted I am that we are actually here to debate this issue—the debate has been delayed twice, so this is our third attempt—and that we have some people here to listen as well. It is wonderful, after the stressful week that we have had, that we have two excellent debates this afternoon on really worthwhile subjects that affect all of our constituents on a daily basis. This is the sort of bread and butter business that this House should be spending more time on, but I fear that we do not spend enough time on it, and that has been a characteristic, over many years, of children’s issues in particular.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. This is a wide-ranging subject, and I am sure that there will be contributions on many aspects from children in care, to safeguarding, early intervention and so on.
I am not overstating the case, having followed this issue in Parliament for now more than 18 years, when I say that children’s social care services are currently approaching crisis point, if they are not already there in certain parts of the country. I am particularly concerned about the disparities and the differential outcomes between different authorities in different parts of the country. That forms the basis of the report “Storing Up Trouble”, which was published last July and produced by the all-party children’s group, of which I am Chair. The Minister very kindly contributed to that report and has spoken to our group in response to it. That followed on from the “No Good Options” report in March 2017, which really flagged up huge differentials in the way that our children are being looked after in the care system and beyond across the country. I thank the National Children’s Bureau and its officers for the immense amount of work that went into that very commendable report.
However, it was not just that report in isolation. I am afraid that, over the past few months, there has been a plethora of reports and many worthy organisations flagging up concerns about the state of children’s social care. Action for Children produced the report, “Revolving Door Part 2: Are we failing children at risk of abuse and neglect?”, which revealed that some 23,000 children needed repeated referrals before receiving statutory support to help them with serious issues such as abuse, neglect and family dysfunction. It found a further 13,500 not getting statutory support despite multiple referrals.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend as worried as I am about the patchy way in which children are brought into the decisions being made about themselves?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend raises a very good point. There is certainly differential practice and this is an important issue. In my time in the Department for Education, we were really keen, as subsequent Ministers have been, that children in the care system should be at the heart of the considerations of what is best for them, but they actually have quite a good idea of what is best for them as well, so it is really important that they are brought into the decision-making process.
In my time as Minister, I made sure that every local authority in the country—with the exception of the City of London and the Isles of Scilly, where there were no children in care—had a children in care council, made up of children in the care system speaking directly to directors of children’s services and councillors about their experiences. I am really pleased that the Government have decided not to do away with independent reviewing officers, who are that important link, consulting children face-to-face and feeding into their care plans.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tim Loughton
I am aware that I do not have long to speak, so I will take just two more interventions and then get on with it or else I shall be in trouble with the Chair.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Let me help. I told the hon. Gentleman that he could speak for “around 15 minutes”, so I would not be too upset if he got to 20 minutes. What I am bothered about is when other Members are left with a very short time limit. Who is the hon. Gentleman giving way to, by the way?
Tim Loughton
I am giving way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue forward. From my research on the matter, it seems that there are an additional 15,000 children in need in England since 2017, so it is clear that there is pressure on the system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree—perhaps the Minister could also respond to this point later—that the fact that Northern Ireland has the fewest children in care per capita in the United Kingdom indicates that a dialogue should take place with the devolved Administrations, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly, to see just how those numbers have been achieved?
Tim Loughton
First, I am very grateful for your flexibility on timings, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Tim Loughton
Yes, as ever.
I entirely take the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford. In fact, one of the weaknesses of the system is that we do not share best practice enough. When I was the Minister, I tried to get together the children’s Ministers from all four parts of the United Kingdom. Of course, we also have Children’s Commissioners from all four parts of the United Kingdom, and we ought to meet them and see what they are all doing more often because there are some really good aspects of the care system in Northern Ireland that we could learn from in England, and vice versa.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that one of the major barriers to children and young people exercising their rights under the UN convention on the rights of the child to be involved in decisions around their own care is difficulty in accessing the content of their personal files, and that this issue needs to be addressed across the country?
Tim Loughton
Gosh. I am afraid that my hon. Friend has got me on to a subject that is an issue for an entire whole-day Adjournment debate in itself, so may I say that he raises a very good point but that I have quite enough to say without straying down that important, though slightly esoteric, pathway?
There have been other reports in recent months. The Children’s Society published its “Crumbling Futures” report, which highlighted that almost 60,000 children aged 16 and 17 are in receipt of support as a child in need, but that as many as 46% of those referred to children’s services did not meet the threshold for support. I am particularly concerned about those who are just below that intervention threshold, who do not feature in any of these numbers and are not getting timely support when they need it.
There have been numerous reports from the Children’s Commissioner, and we have had the Narey review on fostering. The Select Committee on Education has produced its own reports and we have had a Government response. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) secured a debate on the Care Crisis Review, which was published last year and raised some concerning things about the state of the care system. In October, a report from the Education Policy Institute found that the number of referrals to specialist children’s mental health services has risen by no less than 26% over the last five years, but that 24.2% of the children referred for support had been turned away.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the number of reports. In 2016, Bromley’s children’s services were judged to be “inadequate” by Ofsted. Following an inspection in November, the council has now received “good” in all areas and “outstanding” in one area. These improvements are no doubt due to tremendous hard work, particularly by frontline staff in Bromley. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of all these reports, children’s social care needs to be supported by continuous and comprehensive funding to sustain the current levels of service?
Tim Loughton
I will come on to that. Obviously funding is a factor in this. I remember that in my time Bromley was always an exceptional council. I learned many interesting things about volunteering with children in Bromley. There was a pioneering service where volunteers worked alongside social workers helping children who were the subject of safeguarding plans, child protection plans—or whatever they were at that stage—to stay out of the care system. There has also been some very good work in Bromley by former employers in the Department for Education to help to bring that about. There is a combination of factors, but as I have clearly said and will restate in a minute, there is a problem with resources.
The Education Policy Institute also estimated that at least 55,800 children were turned away for treatment in 2017-18, but that is probably an understatement due to the shortage of data.
I am particularly disappointed by a report from the Institute of Health Visiting, headed by the excellent Dr Cheryll Adams CBE, which states that
“despite the health visiting mandate having been extended, it is apparent that universal services for children continue to bear the brunt of public health service cuts”
The health visiting workforce continues to experience significant reductions, with NHS posts falling from 10,309 in October 2015 to 7,982 by April 2018. The report —it is absolutely right—states:
“It is both astonishing and extremely worrying that the visionary work of David Cameron’s government to increase the number of health visitors across England by 50% between 2012 and 2015 could have been undone so quickly. Especially as the evidence for the importance of the very early years impacting on individuals’ future health and wellbeing is now so strong.”
Health visitors are experienced frontline early intervention professionals who often get into the houses of new parents at an early stage and gain their trust. They have been an early warning system for safeguarding problems as well as offering parenting support classes and other mechanisms that parents so often need. We have allowed their numbers to decline, and that is a false economy. I hope that the Minister might pick up on that. Obviously it is a dual responsibility along with the Department of Health.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the first 1,001 days, which deals with perinatal mental health and the crucial first three years from conception to age two when a child’s brain is developing exponentially, I know how important it is to get that early support, particularly for parents who are lacking in some parenting skills. There are safeguarding issues, and it is a false economy not to be doing it. As our report, “Building Great Britons”, showed, the cost of getting perinatal mental health wrong is just over £8 billion a year, and the cost of child neglect in this country is over £15 billion a year. So we are spending £23 billion a year getting it wrong for new mothers and early-age children. That is a heck of an amount of money to be going on failure, frankly.
To put into perspective the importance of children’s services and the apparently relentless increase in demand, the County Councils Network recently reported that counties are responsible for 38% of England’s entire spend on children’s services, and that the councils in England alone overspent by £816 million on protecting vulnerable children just in the last financial year. The Local Government Association—I am grateful for the research that it has done—is predicting a £2 billion shortfall in children’s social care funding by 2020, as the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) said, and it could be as much as £3.1 billion by 2025.
There is good news. I do not want to be such a doom merchant, because the positive work by councils in helping our children and young people to have the best start in life has been illustrated by the latest Ofsted data on children’s social care. It shows that last year the proportion of council children’s services rated good or outstanding has increased, and that more children’s services departments have come out of special measures. I was delighted to hear in the past 24 hours that Birmingham, which has been problematic for so many years—I spent more of my time there than in any other local authority area—is no longer rated inadequate. There is still a steep hill to climb but there are good signs of progress in that huge authority that has all sorts of challenges.
There is a worrying trend in a recent report from the Nuffield Foundation, “Born into care”. It found that in 2007-08 there were 1,039 babies subject to care proceedings within one week of birth, but by 2016-17 this number had more than doubled to 2,447—an increase of 136%. That suggests to me that we are failing to do enough early to prevent babies from having to be taken into care because their parents are deemed inadequate or a risk to them. If we did more earlier on, those children may be able to stay with their parents.
At this point, I want to pay tribute to the family drug and alcohol courts, which were set up by Nick Crichton, a visionary district judge who did an amazing job of providing support and sensitive intervention services to people—usually single mums—who are at risk of a child or perhaps another child going into the care system and giving them an added chance. It was a tough challenge, but the success of the FDACs more than doubled the likelihood of those children staying with their parents and, more importantly, staying permanently.
That work carries on. There are 10 FDACs around the country, and we hope the Minister will be charitable in extending some funding for the FDAC co-ordination unit at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. He has been very helpful in discussions there. Nick Crichton sadly died just before Christmas, but his work has affected the lives of hundreds of children, and I want to put on record our tribute to him.
The Children’s Commissioner found in one of her reports that England now spends nearly half its entire children’s services budget on the 75,420 children in the care system in England, leaving the remaining half of spending for the other 11.7 million children, which includes spend on learning disability. The LGA reports that between 2006 and 2016, the number of child protection inquiries undertaken by local authorities rose by no less than 140%, while the number of children subject to a child protection plan almost doubled. More and more children are being taken into care. As I said, there were 75,420 children in care as of March last year, which is up 4% on the previous year.
Barnardo’s found in its report that 16% of the children referred to its fostering services had suffered sexual exploitation. There is increasing evidence—it is what police, teachers and social workers are saying—that there has been an increase in the number of particularly vulnerable children in the last five years. We have more children coming into the care system, often with more complex problems and requiring more intensive support, but we do not have enough going on—we have much less going on—to intervene early to try to keep them out of the care system. I do not think what I said earlier about a potentially impending crisis is an overstatement.
Barnardo’s also found that in 2010, roughly half of children’s services budgets were spent on family support and prevention, while the other half was spent on safeguarding work and children in care. Now, just under a third is spent on family support and prevention, while the remaining two thirds goes on safeguarding and children in care. We are building up problems for the future by not acting earlier.
Tim Loughton
Mr Deputy Speaker, you are guiding me to take a further intervention, thereby extending my speech, which I will reluctantly do for the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is most gracious. Does he agree that more support should be given to families who are prepared to intervene, to help a child remain cared for by family members and prevent children being taken away from their home and support networks? Does he also agree that foster carers should not have less support and financial help simply because they are not related?
Tim Loughton
Again, the hon. Gentleman, who knows this subject well, makes some good points. We need to support foster carers better. We have overhauled the fostering regulations to ensure that foster carers get a better and fairer deal, as well as the foster children themselves. We have also tried to get more people to adopt and take on permanent responsibility for children.
There are also many voluntary organisations. Volunteers can work alongside vulnerable families, particularly where there is an absence of extended family members such as grandparents who, in another family, might be there to support parents or single parents through difficult times. To be fair, the Department for Education’s innovation fund and other funds have supported some really good work in the voluntary sector. We all need to work together on this, and it starts at home, but if some of the things that many of us take for granted are not in place at home, there are other ways of providing them before the state has to step in and become the parent. We need to be more flexible and imaginative. I am going to race through my remaining pages before you say I am out of time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am delighted by the extent of interest from colleagues here today.
Crucially, there is a good deal of evidence to show that funding pressures are having a disproportionate impact on some of the most deprived areas. I want to pay tribute to Professor Paul Bywaters of the University of Huddersfield, who gave a lot of evidence to our all-party group inquiry, for the work he undertook together with Professor Brid Featherstone of the University of Huddersfield and Professor Kate Morris of the University of Sheffield. If I may quote from some of his notes to the inquiry, Professor Bywaters said:
“Children in the most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods in England…were over 8 times more likely to be either on a Child Protection Plan or be Looked After in the care system…than a child in the least deprived 20%.”
That absolutely concurs with the all-party group’s finding. He also said that he was worried about the paucity of data to provide solid evidence for what we need to do to address this problem. He said:
“The complete absence of any systematic national data about the socio-economic and demographic circumstances of the parents of children in contact with children’s services is a key problem in analysing the factors that influence demand for children’s services. Collecting such data should be an urgent priority to underpin policy, service management and practice.”
That is one of the key recommendations from the all-party group report.
It is a false economy not to be investing in children’s social care as early on as possible. As I have said, that starts at conception, particularly when there are vulnerable parents who have mental health problems or have had poor parenting experiences themselves. This needs to be addressed in the comprehensive spending review. It is a classic example of investing to save—to save financially, but also to save the social consequences of children growing up and not being fully contributing members of society.
Some children are at higher risk, and disproportionately so in certain parts of the country according to deprivation and, indeed, ethnicity. We need to get the data to research those differentials and start applying the proper solution. We cannot do so until we have the proper information. We need to return to a much more preventive approach. That was why we invented the early intervention fund when this Government first came to power, but I am afraid its effects have been dissipated and the amount of funds diluted.
I ask the Minister to do his best to make sure that the troubled families programme, the funding for which comes to an end in 2020, is renewed. I want to see a pre-troubled families programme that deals with the first 1,001 days, before such families get on to the radar of local authorities, because of the problems that come with that.
We need to go back to the Munro report—I am glad to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who took part in that report—and to the unfinished business around early help. We need to share better practice and share research data better. We need to work smarter and more collaboratively. We also need to look after children closer to home, in familiar environments and friends groups, and use kinship care much better than we are now.
This is not just about resources, but about changing the mindset and getting this back as a Government priority. That is why I absolutely welcome the initiative launched last night in this place by Children First to have a Cabinet-level Minister for children, bringing together all these factors.
This is not just something invented in this place. I am delighted to say that, at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires last year, there was the declaration of an initiative for early childhood development. It said:
“We therefore launch the G20 Initiative for Early Childhood Development, determined to contribute to ensuring that all children—with an emphasis on their first 1,000 days”—
one day short—
“are well nourished and healthy, receive proper care, stimulation and opportunities for early learning and education, and grow up in nurturing and enabling environments, protected from all kinds of violence, abuse, neglect and conflict.”
This is an international priority. We have a great tradition of looking after the welfare of our children in this country, we just need to get back to making sure that we are doing it sooner and earlier, when we can have the most effect and the maximum benefit. I am sure the Minister will want to take up those challenges.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I wish to raise several issues today, so I hope hon. Members will bear with me. I am afraid the list got a little longer each time this debate was delayed—it is a good job it is being held today, as who knows how long I would have gone on for otherwise.
It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and the first part of my contribution will focus on the point he rightly highlighted about the lack of effective early intervention. Hon. Members who were in this place before 2015 may know that I have been a critic of the troubled families programme, but I sincerely believe in early intervention. Working closely with families and having a joined-up approach across different public services is the only way to go, and those were the principles that underlined the programme pioneered and implemented by the previous Labour Government before 2010. Those principles also lie behind the troubled families programme.
It is therefore concerning to know that funding for the troubled families programme and its work across our country—both the good and the bad—is set to end next year, with nothing to replace it in sight. I am sure the Government know that there is support across the House for early intervention if it is properly resourced, managed and measured. My only hope is that the looming disaster of Brexit does not distract from the creation of a replacement programme.
It is important to talk about early intervention, because funding for such programmes has fallen massively even as need is soaring. Some 72% of funding for children’s services is now spent on firefighting because children and families are already in crisis, but that funding does not prevent such crises from happening. Early intervention and universal support services have been cut to the bone, with cuts of 60% in each area according to the Children’s Commissioner for England. Those cuts include £1 billion from Sure Start and an additional £900 million from services that work with children and young people. Such massive cuts have meant that social workers find it much harder to work with vulnerable children and families early and effectively. Caseloads have undeniably and inexorably increased, leaving much less time available for regular contact and for building up relationships, trust and understanding with families. That exacerbates family problems, leading to poor child development, school exclusions, more children being taken into care, increases in antisocial behaviour and crime, and signs of abuse or neglect being missed until—sadly, sadly, sadly—it is just too late. Last month, Ofsted’s national director of social care, Yvette Stanley, pointed out that the cuts are clearly a false economy, and that slashing non-statutory services is
“storing up problems for the future”.
Let me remind the Minister about practical early intervention services that are being cut. They include debt and financial advice services, parenting programmes to help families address the causes of disruptive behaviour —programmes that we know are effective—support for victims of domestic violence, and help for getting mums and children out of abusive situations and allowing them to recover. That now all comes out of the children’s services budget, because funding from elsewhere has disappeared.
The list also includes mental health treatment and substance abuse programmes for parents. The Government cannot claim to be pro-family if they continue to remove those forms of support, and the absence of such programmes is driving more and more children into the care of the state. I always try to appeal to what the Government would see as common sense, so let me say simply that it costs more money to take a child into care than it does to prevent them from going into care. Even with a balanced budget approach, the cuts are a massive mistake.
It is bad enough that resources have been cut so much, but demand has also been rising rapidly. Social security cuts and universal credit are undeniably increasing poverty, and poverty leads to more insecurity and massive stresses within families. Some 1.5 million people in the UK are utterly destitute and unable to afford essentials such as shelter, food, heating or clothing, and that includes 365,000 children. The stresses and strains on families’ lives are getting worse because of the Government’s failed and continuing austerity policy.
According to the Government’s own statistics, 1.5 million more disabled people, 300,000 more pensioners, 400,000 more working-age adults and over half a million more children are in poverty than in 2010. The most shocking rise in poverty has been among children with parents in work. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has worked out that there are 710,000 more children in poverty in working households than in 2010. In-work poverty has actually risen faster than employment in recent years. We are talking about working families, many with lone working parents. Many are working long hours and multiple jobs to get by on low pay, constantly struggling to make ends meet. That means that parents are stressed and that they have less time to spend at home and focus on their children, making sure that everything is okay and creating a family whose health is equal to their love.
The worst consequence of child poverty—child homelessness—has also increased massively. That is a huge difference from when I was a child. My family was cleared from a slum in West Silvertown in 1963. We moved into a beautiful, brand-new two-bedroom flat overlooking the dying docks in east London. It was that flat that gave me everything. It was from that flat that everything else stemmed. My mum and dad had stability. They both worked in local factories to provide for us. That home, however small I sometimes felt it was, gave me the ability to study and to grow with my community. It gave me and my sister the opportunity to thrive.
Today’s working class children in the east end have it very different. One hundred and thirty thousand children were homeless over Christmas, an increase of almost 60% in just five years. Ten thousand of those children are stuck in bed and breakfast accommodation, often with a whole family in a single room. Most of the other 120,000 are in temporary accommodation, torn from schools, family and friends, the places they recognise and the support networks they rely on. They often do not even know where their local library is, because they have not been in a place long enough to be able to work it out.
I see the effects of that in my own borough, where I grew up in that secure and safe council flat. Now, appallingly to me, it has the highest level of homelessness in the country. I hear about children having to travel hours each way to school from a different part of the city; families sleeping in dirty, cold, rat-infested rooms; families who have not had a secure, safe place to call a home for year after year after year. How is a child supposed to learn to trust others and feel safe under those conditions? How is a parent supposed to muster the time and energy to engage with a social worker over weeks and months, and how is that social worker supposed to create and maintain a relationship when the family is so insecure?
I believe there is a direct relationship between the crisis in children’s social care and the increase in extremely serious harm caused by criminal gang exploitation in my constituency and the east of London. If the Government want to reduce serious violence, funding children’s services properly is an absolute must. We know that gangs pick on vulnerable children the most. Studies show that poor emotional health at the age of seven is the best predictor of future exploitation by gangs. That means that counselling is one of the most effective ways to prevent children from being exploited. They need to develop resilience.
We know that these children often have undiagnosed special educational needs as well. We should be supporting them, but instead the children and their families are left to struggle on, often alone. Once they reach secondary school, vulnerable children are far more likely to be excluded or off-rolled, increasing the risk of exploitation even more. As we know, exclusions have sky-rocketed by 67% over the past five years. That is the research, but it is also real life. I hear about the consequences from local mums terrified of what has happened to their children. As their MP, I am their last resort. They have already tried everywhere else. I see the same things in the serious case reviews of children who have been tragically and appallingly murdered in gang-related violence. Every review I have seen tells the same story: a vulnerable child; escalating involvement in gang violence; the failure of local agencies to intervene; and opportunities to help not taken. I have absolutely no doubt that cuts to resources are part of the cause.
The case reviews are a statutory responsibility, designed so that lessons can be learned. In summing up, I hope the Minister will tell me the lessons that he and the Department are learning. I have talked about a replacement for the troubled families programme, early intervention, universal preventive services and the cuts, but let us be clear: the crisis in children’s services is systemic. It is just as much about the increased stresses and struggles that families are having to go through because this economy, this social security system and this Government frankly do not work for them.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is a real honour to be able to talk in this debate and to follow the speakers who have already contributed, particularly my very old friend, the former Children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), with whom I worked between 2008 and 2010. He did not blow his own trumpet enough in his speech. While I would not want to blow his trumpet for him, I might at least acknowledge that he has a trumpet.
The work that my hon. Friend did first as shadow Children’s Minister and then as Children’s Minister over a long stretch, between 2004 and 2012, created a Conservative policy on children’s social work where frankly one had not really existed before. During that time, children’s services, particularly children’s social work, were under considerable strain following the tragic death of baby P, Peter Connelly. It was clear that the systems governing children’s social work were not delivering for vulnerable families and were not enabling talented social workers on the frontline to give the care that they wanted to give to families and children in need. The work that he did exposed that and developed the idea.
My hon. Friend wrote “No More Blame Game” and, while I was working for him, he produced “Child Protection: Back to the Frontline”, which introduced the idea of the Munro review of child protection. That whole-system review was brought in following the 2010 general election and was brilliantly conducted by Professor Eileen Munro from the London School of Economics. It showed how we needed to take a new approach that allowed frontline social workers to be in charge of the work they did, and not governed by central systems, such as the integrated children’s system, which was put in place by the former Administration. I put on record my ongoing and continued admiration for the work that my hon. Friend did outside and inside Government. He continues with that work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for children.
I want to focus on something slightly different from the issues my hon. Friend has run through. Having worked for him, I went to work at Barnardo’s and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, the Centre for Social Justice and various places in Whitehall. I looked at fostering, children in care and the root causes of the problems that families in those situations face. It became apparent that, although a great deal of public policy had rightly focused on the needs of children who were in foster care and children who needed to be adopted—another great thing that my hon. Friend did was streamline the adoption process and rapidly increase the number of children who were going into good and loving homes—a large group of children were not in care, but were on the social services’ radar. The Children Act 1989 defines them as children in need. They are numerous, they are needy and they absolutely warrant the increased attention that the Government are now giving them.
There are about 75,000 children in care at any one time, but over the course of any one year there are about 400,000 children in need. Recent work by the Department for Education has shown that in any given three-year period there will be more than 1 million children in need at one point or another. Their GCSE results and future employment prospects are extremely limited: in fact, they are often as poor as, or worse than, those of children in care, for the simple reason that children in care have been taken out of their disruptive, dysfunctional homes and—hopefully—placed in stable foster placements or stable children’s homes and given a second chance, whereas children in need, many of whose families face acute problems, are left in those disruptive environments.
That group was ignored under successive Governments, which was a policy gap, but I am glad to say that this Government and this Minister have started to fill the hole. The review of children in need is starting to expose issues whose existence my preliminary research had led me to suspect, but which I had not been able to flesh out.
One of the most striking statistics is that 51% of young people who are long-term NEETs—not in education, employment or training for a year after they have left school— will have been either in care or in need at one point in their childhood. Such experiences have lasting scarring effects. If we do not deal with them effectively when we notice them, providing the early intervention services that are necessary to prevent children from slipping into these categories, we are storing up problems for the future: problems for society, but also severe problems for those individuals.
The solutions are complex, because the reasons why children and families find themselves in such circumstances are themselves complex. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made many important points, and she was right to identify the scarring effects of poverty, but there are issues besides money that are also important. Some are exacerbated by a lack of money, but some are not. Another striking statistic is that half the children in need in this country are not on free school meals.
Lyn Brown
Some of my constituents who are working are not entitled to free school meals for their children. They could well be poorer financially than those who are entitled to free school meals. Free school meals are no longer a proper measure of which child is in poverty. I should be happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about this over a cup of tea.
Alex Burghart
I should be delighted to take the hon. Lady up on that. I know that what she is saying is absolutely right. However, there are also many children in need who have one parent in work and whose other parent has severe mental health problems or an addiction. The difficulty in such families is not solely related to money; it is caused by the fact that an individual has a very severe problem that is not being adequately met by social services.
When we find a child who is in need and on the edge of care, we need to take a holistic look at that child’s family. In the past, children’s social care sometimes looked very narrowly at how the child was at any one time and not at the immediate environment in which they were living and what could be done to improve it. Indeed, sometimes children ended up in care without their parents being given—or even approached about—the services that were necessary in order to improve that family environment. I would much rather fix the family’s problems in order to keep that family together so that the child can grow up in a stable home.
In terms of what can be done, I am glad the Minister has undertaken this work, which is starting to flush out good practice in the system and areas where more work needs to be done. I venture to suggest some things on which we need to focus. We must look at those slightly older children who are moving towards leaving school. In my experience over the years, I have found that additional professional mentoring conducted in and out of school can be highly effective. There is a wonderful programme in the east of London called ThinkForward, which gives long-term mentoring to children in disruptive homes. The presence of a stable adult to give advice, be a shoulder to cry on and be a support in a time of need is invaluable.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Child poverty levels in my constituency are really high. We have also had the impact of the full roll-out of universal credit recently. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the impact that UC is having? It is exacerbating the problems that a lot of families are suffering from.
Alex Burghart
I am happy to acknowledge that, when families have less money, they can find themselves in debt, which adds to stress and can contribute to poor mental health. I do not know about the cases the hon. Lady is talking about in her constituency, but I have seen the consequences of people being trapped in problem debt for a long time and not being given help to get out of it. That can certainly be a major problem. That issue is slightly off the subject I was talking about. I hope that, if the hon. Lady is unaware of the ThinkForward programme in the east end of London, she will visit it and promote it.
Lyn Brown
I agree that programmes like that in my constituency make a difference, but may I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that additional youth workers and adults for my children to talk to who enable my children to have options and ways out of gang-related activity is what is massively lacking? I made a speech about this just a few weeks ago, if he would like to look at it in Hansard.
Alex Burghart
I will happily look at it. I hope that Opposition Members will realise that they are agreeing with me and perhaps take a slightly different tone when coming back on me on this subject, because what we are all saying is that it is important for families to have the support they need and for vulnerable children to have the support they need, ideally in home but, if it is too late for that or that cannot be made available, in school.
So what needs to be done? I encourage the Government, local authorities and schools to look at long-term stable mentoring projects for those slightly older children. For other families, as has been raised by other Members, the Troubled Families programme is of profound importance. It got off to a slightly bumpy start but has come to be the mainstay of a lot of local authorities’ earlier intervention plans.
When I was in a different job a couple of years ago, I went to see how Camden had completely integrated its Troubled Families programme as part of a spectrum of care running from health visiting all the way through to the most intensive work in children’s homes. It would be terrible if those Troubled Families contracts were not renewed in some way, and I have every confidence that the Government will renew them. As we do it, it is important to consider what we mean by troubled families. I would venture to suggest that this group of young people, classified under the Children Act 1989 as children in need, and this large group of families who suffer from poor mental health, addiction and other such strains, are, by definition, troubled families. As I say, many local authorities already take this approach, but I think it would add a coherence to Government policy in this area if the work being done with troubled families in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and that being done with children’s social care in the Department for Education were brought together. Some local authorities are very good at merging these approaches. Some are less good. I commend those that are.
Alex Burghart
I can see the hon. Lady trying to get in again. I happily give way.
Lyn Brown
This is the last time. As the hon. Gentleman can hear, I am actually listening to his speech. That is why I am so engaged in it. He is absolutely right about the Troubled Families programme. Many parts of the country do it very well—Manchester, for example, has totally and utterly integrated its services and done it really well—but other local authorities game the money and take it elsewhere. We need to make sure that our next programme gets proper and effective results.
Alex Burghart
I could not agree more. The freedoms given to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority by this Administration have allowed it to become a Petri dish for new ways of doing things, breaking down silo budgets and taking a whole-area approach. I have absolute confidence that the lessons being learned in Manchester will eventually be taken and spread elsewhere. I feel that the hon. Lady made another point other than Manchester that I wanted to come back on.
Alex Burghart
Yes, that was it. Getting the data we need to prove effectiveness is one of those extraordinarily valuable holy grails. Successive Governments have found it very difficult to prove the efficacy of individual programmes, but there is a way forward. In New Zealand a few years ago, the Government brought together a huge amount of personal data through what was known as the integrated data initiative. They spliced together data from social services, housing, tax and so on, and then anonymised it and established ethical rules in advance, so that the data could never be used to find out whether someone had not paid their car tax, for instance. It could never be used against people and could only be used at a community level.
As a result, the New Zealand Government are capable now of effectively performing randomised control trials on all their social impact programmes. They know which programmes to give added investment to and which to wind down. Admittedly, New Zealand is a slightly smaller jurisdiction than the United Kingdom. The combining of data on that sort of scale in the UK is a bigger project, but one that would be unbelievably valuable. I have no doubt that we have the expertise in the Office for National Statistics to do it, and do it well, and I am sure the moment we have it, it will be one of those things we wish we had had long ago.
To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker—I mean, Madam Deputy Speaker. How very nice to see you there, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was enjoying the company of the Opposition so much I did not notice that your colleague had left and you had arrived. We must consider not just the children with the most acute needs, important though they are and must remain, but young people on the edge of the system who may come in and out of that hinterland many times during their childhoods but might not qualify for the highest level of support.
Before I conclude my remarks completely, I want to dip into one more policy area that I forgot to mention earlier, and this goes back the issue that I was debating with the hon. Member for West Ham. About half of children in need are not eligible for free school meals, which means that about half of children in need do not receive the pupil premium. That has always seemed like a crazy peculiarity. It is laudable that a child whose parents were briefly unemployed six years ago receives the pupil premium, but I would question whether their need is greater than someone who lives in an abusive home and has been in and out of contact with social services, perhaps over a prolonged period of years. I am a full supporter of the pupil premium programme that this Government introduced in 2011, but as it reaches maturity after eight years it would be worth looking at exactly how that pot is allocated. I would always like it to be a bit bigger, but we also need to consider whether some groups have an eligibility that has not been recognised and could be brought into the system.
We have to think about children who are on the edge, we must consider the needs of their families, and we need to examine the Government programmes and local authority structures that can provide for those families and those children. I have high hopes for the local government financial settlement and for the comprehensive spending review next year, and I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), is here to hear my concerns. I am sure that he will take them forward with the same energy that he has brought to the children in need review in his time in office so far.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must admit that I had to look twice as well, because I did not notice the change in Chair—[Laughter.] My point is that I did not notice that one person had left and another had come in. [Hon. Members: “Seamless!”] It was a seamless transition.
It is often said that the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. If that is the case, this Government measure up poorly when it comes to the treatment of vulnerable children. This Tory Government have created an entirely avoidable crisis in children’s social care. Last year saw the biggest annual increase in children in care since 2010, and councils are now starting 500 child protection investigations every day. Local authorities’ inability to cope with the increase in service demand is a direct result of this Government’s ideologically driven austerity programme. Since 2010, cuts to local authority funding have resulted in a 40% real-terms decrease in spending on early intervention in children’s services. Research by the Local Government Association has found that local government will face a funding gap of almost £8 billion by 2025.
Vulnerable children should never have to suffer because of the unjust political priorities of the Tory party, but the cuts have a human cost. In Lincoln, my postbag is full of letters and emails from worried parents and carers—I get them all the time. The support system is being pushed to breaking point, and growing demand for support has led to 75% of councils in England overspending on their children’s services budgets by over £815 million. As is always the case with Tory cuts to local authorities, councils have been forced to make cuts elsewhere and draw on reserves as a result. So, not only are children needlessly suffering from underfunded social care, but other services that people rely on are being squeezed as well. I think I mentioned earlier that Lincoln has a particularly high rate of child poverty, and that includes children of working parents, not just of those without jobs.
Budget cuts have also stripped away the capacity for early intervention, increasingly requiring child protection services to wait until a child is in crisis before intervening. LGA analysis again shows that Government funding for the early intervention grant has been cut by almost £500 million since 2013 and is projected to drop by a further £183 million by 2020. This Government are placing vulnerable children in dangerous situations that could have been avoided. I know we talk and talk about austerity, and sometimes people turn off, but this country would be a different place if this Government prioritised funding public services adequately over tax cuts for the rich and for big corporations.
It is particularly important that protection is provided for disabled children. Research by the Disabled Children’s Partnership shows a £1.5 billion funding gap for services for disabled children, and in the past few weeks alone I have had four parents of autistic children contact my office with concerns that underfunded and overstretched services are not providing adequate support. I see that in my postbag all the time. On Monday mornings, before I come down to Westminster, I try to make special appointments at 8.30 and 9 o’clock so that I can see and talk to some of these people, because people in Lincoln really are struggling.
Across the board, we see this Government neglecting the services on which children rely so that they can give people tax cuts. Austerity has not only decimated the provision of children’s social care but driven the rise in service demand. The strain put on parents and children is driving record numbers of young people into a social care service that this Government have cut to the bone.
It is not giving with one hand and taking with the other. When it comes to the vital public services on which working people and vulnerable people rely, this Government are taking with one hand and taking with the other, too.
I hope the Minister is actively listening to me, and I hope he can give me some reassurance. I stand up to say things in this Chamber and, sadly, all I get is empty words—party policy—quoted back to me. I would like to see some real action that actually changes something and makes it better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I do not stand to speak just so everyone can see that it is me in the Chair, and not the Chairman of Ways and Means. I have been mistaken for many people in my time, but not for the right hon. Gentleman. I suppose we have similarities—well, we both sit in the Chair.
I will try not to set a time limit, especially as the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) was admirably brief in her remarks, but in order that there will be time for the Front Benchers to speak, it would be helpful if speeches were around eight minutes. We have four colleagues to accommodate, and around eight minutes would mean that everyone is honourable in their treatment of everyone else.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), and it is great to see such a strong Essex presence in the Chair and in the House.
The Children’s Society has been looking out for our most vulnerable children for 138 years. It has a long history in Essex, and its Essex headquarters are, of course, in Chelmsford. The Children’s Society, Barnardo’s and other children’s organisations wrote to all MPs before this debate with a helpful briefing that particularly highlighted the importance of early intervention in helping to avoid problems for children.
Early intervention is the subject of a detailed study by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which particularly considered the issue in relation to childhood adversity and trauma. The study shows the importance of early intervention in tackling potential long-term problems. I urge the Minister to look at the report, which particularly points out that the increasing variety of early intervention programmes have been shown to improve life outcomes for those affected by childhood trauma. However, the report says that provision is fragmented and highly variable, and it encourages the Government to identify areas that are working well.
I am delighted that one area that is working exceptionally well is Essex, which is the second largest area of the country for children’s services. Essex is a significant provider of children’s services, and just last week it received the fantastic news of an “outstanding” rating from Ofsted for its children’s services.
The Ofsted inspectors said:
“Inspirational leaders, supported by good corporate and political support and strong partnerships, are tenaciously ambitious for children.”
Ofsted praises the work of the children and families hub, and the exceptional early intervention services. Ofsted says the social workers are
“passionate about securing and sustaining improvement”
in children’s lives. It mentions the joined-up approach to safeguarding, and the county-wide approach to addressing homelessness, whereby children and families who are at risk of becoming homeless are identified and problems are resolved before they become homeless. Ofsted refers to the work of the gangs intervention team; the private fostering team; the adoption managers, who work to keep families together; the support given to unaccompanied asylum seeking children; and the ongoing work to support children after they have left care and grown up, as it were. This really is an exceptional piece of work. We are very proud of this work in Essex and I wish to put on the record my huge thanks and respect to everyone involved.
Alex Burghart
I wish to join my hon. Friend, as a fellow Essex MP, by putting on record my admiration for everyone who is working in children’s services in Essex, the extraordinary journey they have been on and the remarkable results they are now achieving.
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for that.
It is important to recognise that this has not always been the position; in 2010, the council’s service was rated as “inadequate”. At that time, its spending was £148 million a year. The turnaround in Essex has not come as a result of pouring more money into the system—quite the opposite. The performance in Essex has been turned around despite the fact that £30 million less is being spent on children’s services. The turnaround whereby the second largest authority in the country for children’s services has gone from “requires improvement” to “outstanding” has been done despite funding coming down from £148 million to £118 million. It has been achieved because of a continual focus on early intervention and preventing children from having to go into care in the first place. In 2010, the number of children in care was 1,615, whereas the latest figure is 1,017—so 600 fewer children are in care because we are getting them support earlier. Essex is working with other councils to improve their local children’s services and I particularly wish to put on the record my thanks to Councillor Dick Madden, who co-chairs the LGA taskforce in this area.
The council has just written a lengthy submission to the Select Committee’s report, not only looking at what the council has achieved, but mentioning some of the challenges ahead: there is growth in demand for services; the county, like many others close to London, has experienced migration, with the children from London boroughs being moved out towards Essex; as some colleagues have mentioned, we are facing new phenomena, such as the criminal and sexual exploitation of young people by gangs via county lines; the casework the council is seeing is increasingly more complex; and of course the national shortage of social workers puts pressure on the service and on salaries. That comes on top of the pressure that many local authorities see in their budgets, partly because of the increased number of older people and then the pressure on adult social services. I hope that the Minister will look at this report that the council submitted to the Select Committee because it outlines the problems and makes detailed suggestions.
It is not only Essex’s children’s services that have just got an outstanding ranking. Just before Christmas the inspectors came in to look at our probation services, particularly the multi-agency youth offending team, who have also achieved an outstanding ranking. Essex social care services have just been awarded the best social worker employer of the year award.
Our children are our future. There are issues to address in children’s social services. The Government will be looking at how to plan for the future. I will leave with one plea to the Minister and to any members of the Select Committee: if they would like to learn a little more about how this works in Essex, they should just pop on the train to Chelmsford—we are only an hour away from Westminster—where they will be able to see it all for themselves.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). I am not usually here on a Thursday, but I must say that the Chamber is very good tempered—it’s lovely.
I am going to speak briefly on the issue of social care provision in England and, specifically, how families with disabled children in my constituency face huge battles, fighting for their children to receive the care that they should be entitled to.
Many disabled children and their families rely on support from social care, such as short breaks, personal care and adaptations to their homes. However, most disabled children receive no regular support from outside their own close family and friends. The shift in the balance of services provided by children’s social care has impacted adversely on services for disabled children and their families. There has been a reduction in the number of disabled children who receive social care, despite an increase in the past 10 years in the number of disabled children in the UK by more than one third, to about 1.1 million, and their needs becoming ever more complex.
We all know that 10 years of austerity has resulted in services for disabled children coming under increasing threat due to cuts to local government funding. In fact, the Disabled Children’s Partnership has identified an annual funding gap of £434 million. As the gap has grown wider, two thirds of families have, unsurprisingly, reported a decline in the services available for their loved ones. Every week my team and I talk to families who are under enormous emotional, physical and mental pressure due to the complete failure of the system to offer their children the resources needed to enable them to live their lives with dignity.
On behalf of all of those constituents I will explain exactly what they have conveyed to me, and I hope that the Minister will respond adequately at the end of the debate. First, people are struggling to access the services. The necessary interventions that these children should be entitled to simply are not there, or the wait is too long to access them. Many parents speak of their immense frustration, as they know that investment could prevent the escalation of future problems. By the time something is done, it is often too late.
Secondly, many existing services do not meet expectations. A survey by the Disability Children’s Partnership shows that two thirds of family members have experienced a decline in the quality of services in recent years. Training and development of professionals, staff shortages, increased demand and poor pay can all impact on the quality of the service that people receive. When I was teaching, a referral could take months and the support was often only available for a short amount of time and subject to availability.
Thirdly, families cannot access those services easily. I have worked with a number of families who are exhausted because of the system. They are run down and on the brink due to the constant battle they face just to get what should be a human right. I have lost count of the number of people who have said to me, “The thing is, Laura, what about those who simply can’t fight or who don’t know how to? What happens to them?”
Finally, services do not always work together or communicate well with each other. Fragmented systems that do not join up properly to work in the best interest of the child are more often than not exasperated by chronic underfunding and undervalued and underpaid staff. Families often speak of how their social worker changes and they go back to square one.
What does all of that result in? The quality of life of, and opportunities available to, disabled children and their families is unacceptable compared with those without disabilities. Why is that? Our Government will not provide the funding required because that is the political choice that they have made. Not only is investing in the services available to these children the right thing to do from a human rights point of view; there is also a strong argument in favour of the economic value of doing so. Support can mean that costly long-term residential care is not required and that potential cost to the NHS is reduced. Support can help not only the child, but the parents and carers as well, as there is more opportunity for parents to work if they know that their child is being cared for adequately.
I must make it clear that there are many in my constituency who are working with children with disabilities and are doing an absolutely remarkable job. Often they are doing so through a registered charity, and are unpaid or even working at their own expense. People should not have to rely on the good will of others to receive care that should be a fundamental human right. This Government are relying on the general public to pick up the pieces of their starved system.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the Cheshire Buddies and the Broad Street Project, two remarkable charities in my constituency of Crewe and Nantwich. I was lucky to spend time with them both over the Christmas period. Both go above and beyond to provide care and develop skills that these children desperately need. These organisations are largely staffed by volunteers. One thing that was made absolutely clear was that most of the children attending these charities receive no regular support from outside their own close family and friends and it is sheer fluke that a handful of good people are driving charities such as Cheshire Buddies and the Broad Street Project, so that these children at least receive some help, but that is simply not good enough.
If you do not mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will give you a typical example of what these people do: a child unable to walk with a number of disabilities started attending sessions run by Jane and her team at the Broad Street Project. They were told that the child would not walk. Jane being the determined woman that she is decided, as she has done with so many children, that she was not going to give up on this child. Against the odds, Jane taught this child to walk and to develop a number of other skills that will now remain with her for life. Without that intervention, that child could have spent her entire life in a wheelchair just because the support was not there to teach her how to walk. How many children do not get that opportunity because they do not come across people like Jane?
Before I conclude, I will touch on the issue of respite care for families—something that is probably top of the list for most of the families that I speak to. Everybody needs a break sometimes and nobody more so than someone who is caring for a loved one with complex needs. Briefly, I will mention Stephanie and her team at Cheshire Buddies whose scheme supports more than 95 local disabled children, 17 sibling carers, 27 disabled adults and more than 50 parent carers. The children have a range of needs, including learning disabilities, Down’s syndrome, cerebral palsy, autism and a range of chromosomal conditions. Many of those children come from low-income families and families with a history of special educational needs. Cheshire Buddies runs holiday clubs and day trips to give families that much-needed break. It manages to exist thanks to volunteer support. Without those volunteers, many of these families would be completely isolated.
I pay tribute to Mick Roberts who sadly passed away on 28 December and who will be missed by our community. He was a proud railwayman, a Labour councillor and someone who dedicated so much time and effort to the Seahorse Swimming Club charity in Crewe that helps and supports disabled children and adults to enjoy swimming.
These charities and many others in my constituency are constantly battling for essential funding. They are always in a process of bidding and fundraising and are always worried that their funds will disappear. What then happens to all of those people who rely so much on them? Families who have visited me in my surgery are often desperate. They do not know where else to turn. All that they are doing is fighting for their child—exactly what any one of us would do. They are experts in their children’s conditions—even if they do not realise it—and they are exhausted and mentally drained. One parent said to me recently, “I am a warrior, but I just want to be a mum. What happens if something happens to me?”
I urge the Government to put in place an interim funding arrangement to stabilise the crisis in early intervention services and to prevent more children and families reaching breaking point. They must address, as a matter of urgency, the £3 billion shortfall in children’s social care funding and put children at the heart of the forthcoming spending review.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Bedford Borough Council is very concerned that there is no regulation of accommodation for vulnerable young people who are 16 years old and over—often referred to as semi-independent living or supported accommodation. In Bedford and nationwide, there is a significant shortfall in available placements for children in care or leaving care. This has resulted in an alarming number of 16 and 17-year-olds being placed in independent living accommodation.
An investigation earlier this month by The Observer and BBC Radio 5 Live established that there has been a 28% increase in the number of under-18s placed in independent living accommodation by councils in England in the last eight years. This accommodation lacks living and staff support, and includes unsupervised B&Bs and accommodation owned by private landlords, who have no obligations to offer appropriate care to looked-after children or those leaving care. In the report, we even heard from children who had been placed in tents.
I wrote to the Children’s Minister about this issue recently and I am very disappointed by his response, which completely failed even to acknowledge the problem. The Independent Children’s Homes Association has raised this issue for at least two years with many agencies including the Department for Education, Ofsted and the Children’s Commissioner, but there has been no action at all.
This is a scandal. Vulnerable children are being abandoned by the state and, worse, are put at risk by being placed in unsuitable and unchecked accommodation with adults who have drug addictions or a history of criminal behaviour, including sexual assaults. How many times must these children be let down by those who should be caring for them? Charities such as Every Child Leaving Care Matters and Just For Kids Law say that there has been unprecedented growth in the number of unregistered, unregulated units of multiple accommodation for children aged 16-plus, but of course we cannot be sure of the scale of the problem because they are unregistered. This must change now.
We must measure the problem and understand why it is happening in order to tackle it and ensure that no 16 and 17-year-old vulnerable children are left to fend for themselves in risky, inappropriate and often unsanitary accommodation. I am pleased to hear the Children’s Commissioner say in her interview with BBC Radio 5 Live and The Observer that she will finally be investigating the housing of vulnerable children this year; better late than never.
This is urgent. The Government must act now to introduce legislation that regulates such properties, and to reassure communities and local authorities that appropriate quality standards are achieved, in order to improve outcomes for vulnerable young people and give confidence to our communities.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak about three matters in particular, but I first thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for his dogged pursuit of this debate. Waiting for it has been like a game of pass the parcel; it has been going around and around, and I am glad that we have had it today.
Contributions from both sides of the House have helped to show the seriousness of this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) said, cuts to children’s social care have reached crisis point. I have been asked to speak in this debate on behalf of the councillors on Plymouth City Council, who want to raise the seriousness of the crisis around children’s social care—an area that has not always got the attention that it has deserved. Rightly, adult social care has taken the lion’s share of headlines and funding in recent years, but the crisis in children’s social care has been growing because of a mix of austerity, poverty, cuts and growing demand. It is a poisonous situation that has left some of the most vulnerable children in the country in the worst possible state.
As we have already heard today, analysis from the LGA shows that we need further funding of £3 billion if we are to keep children’s services standing still by 2025. There are more looked-after children being cared for than ever before, and that number is only going to increase. Early intervention is so important, but funding for early intervention programmes is being cut. The expertise of our social workers and charities at a local level is being removed by slow attrition and cuts. People are losing faith and confidence that this system is one in which they want to play a part. But we need the system to work like never before. In Plymouth, as in many other councils across the country, councillors—of all political parties, to be fair—are putting more and more money into children’s social care because there is more and more demand. There are more children in care in Plymouth than ever before, and that will only continue to eat up more and more council funding. Plymouth City Council has lost £350 million in revenue support since 2013, and losing 60p in the pound of funding means that the urgent care needs of our children are sometimes being neglected.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) said, we need to do more to care for the children, particularly 16 and 17-year-olds, who frequently get left out of the system, being put in semi-supported situations where they are left to fend for themselves without the wraparound care and support that they really need. Many of those young kids are at a crossroads in their lives. If they receive the support that they deserve, there is the potential for them to lead full and productive lives. However, far too many young people who have been in care and looked-after children in semi-supported states will not go on to fulfil their potential, because of cuts. Far too many of them will enter the criminal justice system. We can stop that if we take serious steps to do so. I welcome the extension of local councils’ responsibility for people who have been in care up to the age of 25. That is exactly the right thing to do, but it cannot happen unless the funding goes along with it, because having additional responsibilities without additional funding loads more and more pressure on to an already pressurised system.
I want to raise an issue that has not been spoken about so far—exceptionalism in our children’s social care system. One reason why funding for Plymouth’s social care system has been sunk in recent years is the exceptional costs of funding care packages for a very, very small number of children. I want to choose my words carefully, because it is really important that in discussing and debating these issues, at no stage is any blame attributed to the children who need multimillion-pound care packages. Plymouth City Council has lost legal cases about how those care packages are funded. I know that the Minister will be aware of that, and I would be grateful if he could agree to meet the council to discuss how the huge number of those exceptional cases is basically sinking our budget. It is exactly right that the children with the most complex and urgent care needs get that care, especially in a region like the south-west where complex care facilities are not our doorstep and children need to leave the area and the support networks in their locality. However, we cannot defund the needs of the many just to fund those of the few. That is really important. I fear that in a funding situation where there is more and more demand, difficult choices will need to be made. When local councils have lost so much of their funding, exceptional care packages risk really undermining the quality of care that can be given to every child. The Minister is nodding—I am grateful that he will meet to discuss that.
There are so many good people working so hard in children’s social care, and they do not get the praise or the thanks that they deserve. Sometimes in this place it is not fashionable to praise local councils, but I want to thank them. I thank local councillors of all political hues, who are going the extra mile to support urgent children’s social care issues. I thank the care workers and the charities that we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith). I thank foster carers, who are the fundamental bedrock of this issue—I know that because my dad and my stepmother have been fostering children since I was at an early age. Since being a young boy, I have had around the house a constant stream of kids about yea high who have been beaten, abused, starved, neglected or ignored. We need to create a system where those children are given a chance to fulfil their potential. That can come only when the funding envelope for children’s social care is adequate for the urgent needs that we have, and when sufficient political priority is put on all aspects of the children’s social care debate.
There is an urgent need for us to continue this debate. I encourage the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to secure another debate, because we need to keep this in the headlines and on the agenda. If we do not, it risks slipping off. Adult social care takes the headlines and the need. As we have an increasingly old population, adult social care will take up a bigger share of the pie, and we need to ensure that looked-after children—some of the most neglected in our society—are not ignored by this place in favour of other areas.
I want to thank all the people who work so hard on children’s social care, including our local authorities, careworkers, charities and the individuals and families who are trying so hard, but we need to do better, and the best way is by funding this work properly.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for his persistence in securing this important debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Rarely does this House debate children’s social care, but it is clear from the strength of the speeches today that not only do such debates warrant more frequency, but more importantly, Government action is needed now, before the growing number of children and families being failed by a system that does not need meet their needs swells to even larger proportions.
The Minister is on record as being of the view that “good leadership”, not increased resources, is the key to improving outcomes. As someone who practised as a social worker, I have to say that that is simply not true, nor does that assertion resonate with the reality that dozens of organisations, charities and trade unions and a plethora of cross-party Select Committee reports and groups across the House are repeatedly telling him about.
The scale of the neglect of our most vulnerable children is colossal: more than 400,000 children in need; the largest number of children in care since the 1980s; care proceedings up by a staggering 130% since 2008; increasingly poor outcomes for the thousands of children leaving care; falling adoption rates; social worker recruitment and retention difficulties; a falling number of foster carers; and increasingly large private sector contracts focused on profit, not care.
More than 120 national organisations wrote to the Prime Minister last year stating that this Government are ignoring children. They cited compelling evidence that the services and support that children and young people rely on are at breaking point, yet they were ignored. The Local Government Association now reports that local authorities will face a £3.1 billion funding gap in children’s services by 2025, and 60% of children’s social workers have said that austerity and cuts have affected their ability to do their jobs.
There is now a wealth of research that highlights the links between austerity and the rising number of children coming into contact with children’s services and entering care. One study, by the Nuffield Foundation, found that deprivation was the largest contributory factor in a child’s chances of being looked after. Another, by the National Children’s Bureau, found that 41% of children’s services are now unable to fulfil their statutory duties. I know that the Minister is not too concerned about local authorities fulfilling their statutory duties towards children, as he recently argued that such duties are subject to local interpretation and disseminated a very dangerous myth-busting document advising local authorities to dispense with their statutory guidance in relation to the most vulnerable children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
The hon. Lady needs to correct the record. What she said about dispensing with statutory guidance is absolutely not true, and I urge her to correct the record.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I do not need to correct the record, because what I am saying is already correct.
Especially since the children’s rights charity Article 39 has written to the Secretary of State threatening judicial review on the matter, I again urge the Minister to withdraw that document and cease the repeated attempts to deregulate and wipe away hard-fought-for protective legislation for children. This Government tried to do so during the passage of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, and they failed in the attempt to allow private services to take over children’s services. I politely suggest to the Minister that he should instead focus on the unprecedented rate of referrals, which stand at more 1,700 children every single day. The consequence of that is a tightened threshold for intervention, meaning that, last year, 36,000 children had to be referred multiple times before they received statutory support to help them with serious issues.
Worse still, there are an estimated 140,000 further children on the fringes of social care in England who are not receiving any support at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) said, there will be many more, because there are those who simply do not seek help or do not know where to go to for that help. That means that children in desperate need of help are being subjected to further harm because of a lack of resources and funding.
I have etched on my brain—and I wish I did not have—every single child and family I worked with prior to entering this place. I remember vividly the little boys and girls who had been so severely abused and neglected that they gouged their own skin, the children who had fled war zones who were stoic and motionless in playgrounds and completely unable to interact with their peers, and the adolescents who would severely self-harm after being subjected to sexual exploitation. Thankfully, I also remember being able to make a positive difference to those children’s lives.
However, ex-colleagues now tell me that, despite their absolute best efforts, the hollowing out of local government and the decimation of wider support services, mentioned so characteristically articulately by my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), have left many children waiting longer for help. Each hour these children wait, they are suffering significant and, for some, irreversible harm.
It is therefore not only misguided but dangerous that, against that backdrop, the Government have pressed ahead with slashing local authority early intervention grants, a point that was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee); closing 1,200 Sure Start centres; decreasing funding to children’s centres by nearly 50%; removing funding from the very initiatives that help to keep children out of the care system, such as the family drug and alcohol court national unit; and actively implementing policies that make it almost impossible for foster carers, kinship carers and special guardians to care for children. It is little wonder that members of the Minister’s own party are warning in the press that we are fast approaching another Baby P tragedy.
In the case of children in residential care, why has the Minister ignored my warnings that many homes are facing potential collapse overnight due to the overnight levy? Why has he not addressed the shameful situation whereby children in residential care are locked out of the “staying put” arrangements afforded to those in foster care? Why has he not listened to my concerns about the number of children being placed miles away from their families? Worse still, he has not acted sufficiently on the use of state-sanctioned restraint that is designed to cause physical harm to children in the secure estate. Why has he not responded sufficiently to the recent news that increasing numbers of vulnerable children are being placed on their own, with no support, in hostels, bed and breakfasts and, in some cases, tents and caravans? That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin).
In 2016, the National Audit Office reported that actions taken by the Minister’s Department since 2010 to improve the quality of services delivered to children had not yet resulted in improvements. Just last year, the Public Accounts Committee, after its examination of child protection, stated:
“The Department lacks a credible plan for improving the system by 2020.”
It is clear to everybody except this Government that their whole approach lacks any cohesive strategy and is consumed with piecemeal, misguided measures. Measures such as the What Works centres, Partners in Practice, the discredited national assessment and accreditation system and the innovation programme are not yielding any positive changes, but have so far have cost over £200 million, with at least £60 million going from taxpayers to private companies.
Labour would do things differently. We understand the holistic nature of children’s social care, which is why we are committed to looking at the care system in its entirety and giving equity to all forms of care. We are committed to stemming the tide of privatisation in the sector, because there is no profit to be made in good social care. We are committed to putting into domestic legislation the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. In short, we are committed to children. We will ensure that every child matters once again, because at the moment that belief could not be further from the reality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this debate, on his expertise and on his persistence in ensuring that this debate was held—third time lucky. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and the hon. Members for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for Lincoln (Karen Lee), for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), as well as others who intervened, including my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood), and the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). They brought valuable—indeed sometimes invaluable—insight to this vital issue.
Nothing is more important than our work to identify vulnerable children early and to give them the support they need to keep them safe. I applaud the all-party group for children for being vocal champions of that, and I give an assurance that the Education Secretary and I share that priority. As many colleagues pointed out, the importance of children’s social care too often goes unrecognised. Many colleagues said that today. It makes headlines only when things go wrong. We should value the contribution of social workers day-in, day-out in making a difference to children’s lives in sometimes very challenging circumstances.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, the challenges facing children in families, communities and beyond are many and varied. As we all know from our constituencies, there can be stark differences in the demographics, economic status and social problems faced by different communities—even between one area and its neighbour. That is why children’s social care is delivered locally within a national legislative framework for safeguarding and child protection in England. That long-standing principle is enshrined in the Children Act 1989 and it places on all local authorities the same duty to take decisive action wherever a child is at risk of, or suffering significant harm.
All 50 judges in the family courts must use the same law when making decisions wherever care proceedings are under way, but local authorities remain best placed to identify, assess and respond to local priorities, setting the criteria for accessing services that reflect the needs of children in their area. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham rightly reminded us, thresholds play an important part in allowing local authorities to do that work. Whether those thresholds are set appropriately and properly understood is scrutinised by Ofsted as part of its inspections, and factored into its independent judgment about the quality of local services.
What Ofsted tells us about quality corroborates some of the APPG’s findings, which suggest that the picture across the country is far from uniform—indeed, it has been described as a postcode lottery. Although some children and families receive good and outstanding services, the majority live in areas where those services are inadequate or require improvement. Some variation is right and necessary in responding to local needs, but such inconsistency in the quality of services is not. We must recognise that Government action is needed if all children are to receive the same quality of support that every child deserves. Addressing this inconsistency is a priority for me and my Department, through our wide-ranging national social care reforms and through strong action to drive up quality where services are less than good.
We will intervene every time Ofsted judges children’s services to be inadequate. Our intervention brings results: the first children’s services trust in Doncaster moved from inadequate to good in just two years. Just last week, Ofsted published an inspection report for Bromley—the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge is not in her place, but she rightly praised the team and the leadership in Bromley—showing that its services are no longer inadequate, but are now judged as good. Today I am delighted to say that, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham reminded us, after almost a decade of deeply entrenched failure, children’s services in Birmingham are no longer inadequate. Ofsted published its inspection report for Birmingham this morning. It noted that the children’s services trust, which we worked with the local authority to establish, has
“enabled the re-vitalisation of both practice and working culture, and, as a result, progress has been made in improving the experiences and progress of children”.
In fact, since 2010, 44 local authorities have been lifted out of intervention and not returned. The significance of that should not be underestimated. We raised the bar for Ofsted inspection in 2013 to drive up quality for children, but by May 2017 20% of authorities had not met our new standards and had been found inadequate. That has since reduced by a third, from 30 to 19 today as a result of our reforms. This is not intervention for intervention’s sake, as the Labour Front-Bench team attempted to spin it, but improving the lives of children and families.
I am not complacent about the challenges. We have seen considerable improvements in some areas, but other areas, such as Wakefield, Bradford and Blackpool, have declined this year. That is why we are investing £20 million in regional improvements to get ahead of failure. As well as supporting every local authority rated inadequate, a further 26 are receiving support from a strong Partner in Practice local authority, with work under way to broker support for many more.
The number of local authorities achieving the top judgments under the new Ofsted framework is small but growing. In December, Leeds was rated as outstanding and, just last week, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, Essex received the same Ofsted judgment. I visited the hub she spoke about and I have to admire Councillor Dick Madden and his excellent director of children’s services for what they have been able to achieve. That example demonstrates that this is about not just funding, but real, good practice on the frontline and strong leadership. In total, five local authorities have been rated outstanding since 2018, setting the highest ambitions and showing that even within current constraints—there are financial constraints, as the hon. Member for West Ham reminded us—local authorities can deliver outstanding children’s services. My aim is that the improvements we are making continue at pace, so that by 2022 less than 10% of local authorities are rated “inadequate” by Ofsted, halving failure rates within five years and providing consistently better services for thousands of children and families across the country.
Service quality is a significant variable in what differs between local areas. Crucial to service quality is the social care workforce. The practice of staff locally, from the leadership of directors of children’s services to the decision making of social workers, makes a huge difference to ensuring that the right children get the right support at the right time. That is why we have set clear professional standards for social workers, and invested significantly in training and development to meet those standards nationally—to ensure a highly capable, highly skilled workforce that makes good decisions about what is best for children and families.
Nadhim Zahawi
I do not have enough time. I have a lot to get through and I am hoping to make lots of responses to colleagues.
Beyond the front door, decision making is especially critical at the high end of social care, recognising that, where children are at significant risk, these decisions can be life changing, and in both directions. Over-intervening can potentially cause as much harm as the consequences of leaving a child where they are. In most cases, children are best looked after by their families, with removal a last resort. That is paramount and it is important to strike the right balance between local support to keep families together and protecting children from dangers within their family. Where a child cannot live within their birth family, I am clear that finding the right permanent home and permanent family must be a priority, while always taking account of children’s own wishes and feelings. Sometimes the best place for a child can be found within the care system. Sometimes it can be with a new family through adoption and sometimes it can be with family and friends informally or through special guardianship.
A recent sector-led review found a complexity of many overlapping factors contributing to a known rise in care proceedings and entries into care. That is why the sector, my Department, the Ministry of Justice and the recently established What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care are all looking to understand better what makes a difference in supporting children to stay with their families safely and preventing them from reaching crisis point.
Some promising signs are emerging from our innovation and partners in practice programmes. We have invested almost £270 million in developing, testing and learning from new practice. From innovative projects showing real early promise, we have identified the seven features of practice that achieve impact and allow change to take hold. We continue to learn from what achieves the best outcomes for children and families and to support local authorities to adopt and adapt the programmes that successfully intervene. Early help plays a significant and important part in promoting safe and stable families. It is about intervening with the right families at the right time and, most importantly, in the right way. In doing so, the statutory guidance “Working Together to Safeguard Children” is unequivocally clear that local areas should have a comprehensive range of effective, evidence-based services in place to address needs early.
Unfortunately, I am out of time. I would just like to remind the House that my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar and for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about the Troubled Families programme. The three local authorities—Leeds, North Yorkshire and Hertfordshire—where we are going to scale up with the £84 million that the Chancellor backed us with at the Budget were asked how they have delivered effective children’s services. They all mentioned the Troubled Families programme as being a central pillar of their work. I will leave it there. I had much to say in response to many of the contributions today. Perhaps I will write to colleagues on the specific points they raised. I leave a couple of minutes for my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, to sum up.
Tim Loughton
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have never questioned your gender. I do not think you look remotely like the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle).
I thank all Members who have made this an exceedingly valuable debate. It is quite something when we almost need a time limit imposed on contributions in the last debate on a Thursday afternoon, on a subject that does not get nearly enough attention, as Members have mentioned.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). He certainly was exceedingly generous in blowing my trumpet, but he has quite a large tuba of his own in terms of his achievements—a positive cornucopia—not only in this place, but before he became a Member, as part of Barnardo’s and in working for the Children’s Commissioner on the Munro review. It is clear he has extensive knowledge, from the east end to New Zealand. He makes a great contribution to children’s issues in this place.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who was inadvertently arguing with my hon. Friend at certain times. Actually they were agreeing over an awful lot. Many of the horrendous cases of knife crime that we have seen in her constituency can be traced back to poor attachment. The origins of those problems are exactly what we are all talking about. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). She mentioned the fantastic work being done by Councillor Dick Madden and by Dave Hill, the director of children’s services, who turned around Essex when he came in in 2009. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned disabled children and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) spoke about supported accommodation for vulnerable young people.
Let me end by echoing the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) to the social workers, whose praises we do not sing enough, and to the councillors and council officers who work with them. I am proud to be a trustee of the Social Worker of the Year awards, which recognise those benefits.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered children’s social care in England.
Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a shame that the Children’s Minister, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), could not stay for the debate, because I think that it follows on very naturally from the last one.
“Babies being born brain-damaged by alcohol is a national emergency”. So ran the title of a piece in today’s edition of The Times about this debate. It is justified by a recent study conducted by Bristol University, which suggests that some 79% of women say that they drank alcohol while pregnant, and that between 6% and 17% of the 14,000 or so children covered by the study have foetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Scaled up—and this is why the term “national emergency” is not misplaced—that gives a figure of between 42,000 and 120,000 children a year.
So what is foetal alcohol spectrum disorder? It is an umbrella term for a range of effects that prenatal alcohol exposure can have on an individual. FASD is the commonest non-genetic cause of learning disability in the United Kingdom, yet it is entirely preventable. It lasts a lifetime: this is not just about babies. What does it look like? People often think that they understand the syndrome. They say to me, “Yeah, we know about that. It is a really bad problem when women have drunk heavily during pregnancy.” It is true that there are often facial and physical features characteristic of children with FASD, but, relatively speaking, that applies to a very small proportion of the wider spectrum.
The impact on the brain, although usually not immediately obvious from the outside, affects language, memory, attention, processing and understanding, and creates emotional, behavioural and learning difficulties. Children often struggle with complex concepts such as time, metaphor or consequences. Rewards and sanctions mean very little to children with this kind of brain damage, and consequences do not mean very much either.
A constituent of mine adopted two children. One of them, who is 16, had no idea of the consequences of his actions, and got into trouble. He has no idea that he has done anything wrong—the idea is meaningless to him—but because of a wider lack of understanding, including a lack of understanding in our criminal justice system, he very nearly went to prison. He was spared that, more by luck than by judgment. His victims did not understand—for good reason: why would they—and I think that there was very little understanding in the system.
A 17-year-old who gave evidence to the all-party parliamentary group on foetal alcohol spectrum disorders, which I chair, described the effect on her emotions. When she gets angry, she has no control whatsoever. I know that is true of many people, but controlling anger can be harder for those with this kind of brain damage. She described to our all-party group how she sees herself from the outside, as somebody else almost; it is a sort of out-of-body experience, and she has no control over it. I have heard that repeated by a number of children and young people affected by FASD, including my own adopted daughter; I have two adopted children, both of whom are affected by this, which is why I have become aware of it and taken so much interest in it.
There are implications for society as well as individuals, because this disorder does not go away when children become adults. In Canada, they have estimated that half of their prison population has FASD; I wonder whether the situation is very different here. FASD affects people’s ability to get qualifications, and I wonder how many of those who are sleeping rough or are otherwise homeless have FASD. Returning to the point I made about not understanding time or consequences, I wonder how many people who are sanctioned for not attending appointments with the Department for Work and Pensions have FASD. There is likely also to be a strong link between FASD and having difficulties with holding down a job or maintaining a stable relationship.
In the United States, a study last year estimated an annual personal cost of $24,000, before considering the cost to the criminal justice system. That is a relatively small element of the cost for some of the people with FASD in the United States. For years in the United States they have described people with FASD as million-dollar babies, often multi-million dollar babies, because of the long-term societal costs as well as that to the individual.
We have just had a very good debate on children’s social care, and I wish I had been able to take part instead of just listening to it. Population evidence to the all-party group suggested—this is a relatively low estimate —that at least a quarter of the children in the care system are affected by FASD. I have heard other adopters and people who run adoption agencies describing adoption as a family-finding service for children with FASD, because it is so common among the adopted children population. May I add to the tribute paid in the last debate to adopters, foster carers and all professionals who do what they can to support the children, young people and, indeed, adults who continue to face the challenges of FASD?
What am I asking for? I am asking for action on prevention and diagnosis, and action to cut the numbers, and for a sea change in our approach and our building of awareness among the population, including and especially among health professionals.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and I have talked about this issue a number of times, and I commend him for taking it forward. I was interested to read that twins who are exposed to exactly the same amount of alcohol in the womb can have very different outcomes. It is a very complicated situation. Genetic factors are involved and we have no way of predicting in advance what the risks are. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to understand this better, we are learning all the time, and we cannot identify anything that would make drinking safe during pregnancy?
Bill Esterson
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention which prompts me to cite a recent study from the Washington State University. Its foetal alcohol syndrome diagnostic and prevention network has identified that foetuses can experience vastly different FASD outcomes despite being exposed to identical amounts of alcohol—which is what happens with twins. There is no way of predicting what will happen, and its conclusion, which I am glad to see the chief medical officer now accepts, is that the only safe amount to drink is “none at all”.
I am asking that the chief medical officer’s advice and guidance, which has now been accepted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as well, be given much greater prominence and that we build awareness so that everyone understands it, especially, but not exclusively, health professionals. I am asking that we have a proper study of incidence so that we need not rely on the limited evidence of the Bristol University study. It was only able to make rough estimates, given the nature of its research, but if it is between 6% and 17%, it really does need that intervention and prevalence study.
We have to build greater understanding among health professionals and professionals right across the public sector. I have mentioned support as well. There needs to be greater support for those living with FASD—both those suffering from it and those caring for them— and those in education and elsewhere who are looking after them.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for all the work he has done raising the profile of this condition. He knows I support him through the all-party group, and he knows of the experiences I have had with children’s homes in Denmark, which very much pioneered the work here, because of the alcohol problems among residents of Greenland and others. He is absolutely right that many of our children in the care system are directly affected by this. Does he agree that we have to get much better at giving clear advice, as we now do on smoking and its impact on lungs? We need a similar campaign to make absolutely clear to women exactly what the risks are to their unborn children if they continue to drink, as many of them will do.
Bill Esterson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw the comparison with smoking. There is no way anybody does not understand that you do not smoke when you are pregnant. We need the same cultural understanding of the effect of alcohol.
I am very pleased that the chief medical officer listened to the all-party group’s advice in the inquiry that we held when we published our report at the end of 2015 and that the guidance is now right and advises women not to drink at all if they are pregnant or planning to conceive. NICE caught up last year, but many people, including some health professionals, still regard the previous guidance as relevant. There is a question mark for many. They think, “If the advice previously was one or two drinks, maybe it’s still okay”. It is not, and we need to make that clear.
The country has a history in this respect going back many years. A glass of Guinness used to be thought a good idea for pregnant women because of the iron.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend says red wine too.
I described some of the symptoms to a constituent of mine in his 60s, and he said, “That’s me”. That will have been a result of the culture and the advice about it being okay to drink. We need a sea change in that culture, which is so deep seated, in order to end the misapprehension. A baby’s liver matures later in pregnancy than other parts of the body and so cannot process alcohol. When mum drinks, so does the baby. People have to understand this. The problem is that much of the damage is likely to be done early in pregnancy. There is a video on the internet of an embryo that is introduced to a drop of alcohol. It stops moving for two hours. Goodness knows what damage is done in that time by one small drop of alcohol. People do not understand the risks they are taking. In that regard, the intervention from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was very welcome.
Nicola Blackwood, in a Westminster Hall debate on 2 February 2017, talked about improvements to industry labelling, and guidelines were issued in March 2017, but I am afraid it simply has not changed. It is not good enough. The labelling is not clear. It is still small. People do not understand it. We need to improve on that. That was a subject of my ten-minute rule Bill in 2015. Please can we have improvements there.
Nicola Blackwood also said in that debate:
“Health professionals are supposed to discuss it with pregnant women”.
We need to ensure that health professionals put much more emphasis on the issue and to consider the impact across the wider population. There should be greater understanding and awareness in the drinks industry. The industry makes great progress some of the time, but where are the notices in our pubs and restaurants telling people about the dangers of FASD? I want to know what happened to what the then Minister said in that debate, because we have not seen much progress. I think it was the Minister present, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) just a few weeks ago about the duties of midwives and other professionals. It is great that we have the duties, but what are the outcomes? That is something that needs to change.
I want to hear the Minister’s response, but I have one or two more comments. Sadly, women sometimes consume alcohol before they know that they are pregnant, and damage may be done during that early period, but others are unwilling or unable to stop drinking alcohol while pregnant. The damage to babies, the impact on families, the long-term effect, the direct costs to the public purse, and the lost productivity from FASD sufferers and carers are real problems for this country. It is a hidden epidemic, and it is time that it was out in the open. It is time that we had the full information. I said that I want prevention and greater support, so let us get the advice out there. I am sure that the Minister can make a lot of progress in that regard.
This is too big just for good intentions. Those suffering from FASD need firm commitments and action. This country has the fourth-highest prevalence of FASD in the world. Canada has invested 1.1 million Canadian dollars just for indigenous children who suffer from FASD. We have money going into dealing with alcohol-related problems, but not directly into FASD, so perhaps the Minister will take that away and consider it. FASD is an entirely preventable problem, and it is the biggest cause of disability in the UK. Minister, your move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
Nobody has ever handed over to me that way before, but I like it. I was just saying to the Whip on duty that I should congratulate the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) not just on getting this debate, but on his consistent record of campaigning in this area over many years. I am sorry that that came about due to bad personal experience, but I hope that his two adoptive daughters are okay and are proudly watching him do his work in the House tonight.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his work to raise awareness of the condition through the all-party parliamentary group on foetal alcohol spectrum disorders. I chaired many APPGs when I was on the Back Benches, and I always say—I make no apologies for repeating it—that so much good work in this House goes on in APPGs. There is so much expertise, and they do not get enough awareness in the public or in this House, but they should. The hon. Gentleman has certainly helped with that tonight.
It is true that we do not know enough about the extent of FASD. The recent Bristol screening tool study suggests that between 6% and 17% of people in the general population could be suffering from FASD, but I suspect that that is an underestimation. The study is an important contribution but, even as its authors acknowledge, there are limitations to the data, and its prevalence estimates should be treated with caution. There is no question that the hon. Gentleman is right that more needs to be done to clarify the true prevalence of FASD, and the Department will consider future research in this area—I take the hon. Gentleman’s challenge. We do know that the impact of FASD can be severe, with the lifelong physical, behavioural and/or cognitive disabilities that he mentioned. Unfortunately, there is no cure, but we know that early intervention can help improve a child’s development and help them to lead an improved life. The hon. Gentleman made well the point that FASD does not just affect babies.
Touching on prevention, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is one of the key priorities of the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, which is music to my ears as the Minister for Public Health, Primary Care and Prevention. The hon. Gentleman is right that FASD is an entirely preventable condition, so that makes my ears prick. Prevention is vital, and the all-party parliamentary group has made it the fulcrum of its work to raise awareness of the dangers of drinking in pregnancy in order to protect future generations from an entirely preventable condition.
First and foremost, we need to be absolutely clear to women about the facts on alcohol so that they can make well-informed decisions. That applies both before they become pregnant and when they come into contact with the health system—in primary care we call it making every contact count. The UK chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, with whom I work closely, published low-risk drinking guidelines in 2016, which provide very clear advice to women not to drink alcohol if they are planning for pregnancy or if they are pregnant. Public Health England, for which I have ministerial responsibility, reinforces that advice through its public health messaging, both global and targeted.
We have been very clear with the alcohol industry that we expect the guidelines to be reflected on the labelling of all alcoholic products, and we have given the industry until September 2019 to ensure that its labelling reflects the updated guidelines. The industry knows that I will be watching it like a hawk.
There is also central advice through NHS.uk and other media platforms such as our Start4Life branding to inform women of the dangers of drinking during pregnancy. Of course, all upper-tier local authorities in England are now public health authorities. As part of their local public health duties, they rightly continue to educate the public about the dangers of alcohol during pregnancy, and it is encouraging to hear about initiatives such as “Be your baby’s hero, keep alcohol to zero,” which is one of my particular favourites. In Blackpool, of all places, areas of high alcohol use in pregnancy are being targeted to stop future cases of FASD. Be your baby’s hero, keep alcohol to zero—I just like saying it.
Once women are pregnant, they generally come into contact with health services frequently, which gives many opportunities for healthcare professionals to give advice on alcohol. As I mentioned at Health and Social Care questions this week, there are many campaigns on diet and nutrition, and health professionals are very aware of the dangers of drinking. Cancer Research UK has been helpful on this issue, and it is very aware of the dangers of drinking alcohol during pregnancy. The key thing is that pregnant women are given consistent messages, delivered in a supportive, non-judgmental way. The same goes for obesity, another area for which I am responsible. Messages about being overweight should be delivered in a supportive way and alongside a call to action, and many primary care professionals find that difficult, which I understand. It is easy for us to say, “Well, they should just mention it,” but it is not quite so easy.
Midwives and health visitors have a central role in providing clear, consistent advice and early identification and support, and they are well equipped to do it supportively. We are reinforcing that role through a number of strategies. Through the maternity transformation programme, the Department is working with NHS England, Public Health England, the Royal Colleges and a range of charities such as Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal death charity. The House will be well aware of Sands, which does such good work to promote safer maternity services. This programme covers a range of initiatives, which include raising awareness of the known risk factors among pregnant women and health professionals, as the hon. Gentleman has asked for. This will ensure that women receive consistent, supportive advice on how to minimise the risk of stillbirth, including the importance of healthy eating and of not smoking—I am responsible for the tobacco control plan—or drinking alcohol during pregnancy.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has updated its guidelines to reflect the CMO’s advice not to drink during pregnancy. The Department will continue to work with the Royal Colleges—I was with the head of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges last night—and various other regulatory bodies to raise the profile of the CMO’s guidelines and to recommend that they include those guidelines within their training, which the hon. Gentleman has consistently asked for.
Bill Esterson
I appreciate the tone and content of the Minister’s response so far. I neglected to ask him about the alcohol strategy. Will he say a few words about his intentions to include action on FASD in that strategy? That would be an extremely important and welcome step for those interested in this subject.
Steve Brine
I do not directly own the alcohol strategy, but obviously I am involved in it. I take the hon. Gentleman’s challenge on board, and maybe we can discuss it further. I know he has stuff he wants to feed into the strategy—he has produced it through the all-party parliamentary group—so perhaps we can discuss it further. I can then discuss it with my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office. It would make absolute sense to do so as part of the strategy, and I suggest linking it to our Green Paper on prevention, which we will be bringing out this year. His question is spot on.
I will now touch on services for affected families. We know that FASD can have a huge impact on the early years development of children and on their life chances, and the hon. Gentleman gave a number of good examples. We also know that early intervention services in this area, as in every area, can help to reduce some of the effects and, therefore, the secondary disabilities that come as a result. The responsibility for commissioning services in this space lies with the clinical commissioning groups in England, working together across all different sectors of the local health economy. We have heard of cases of long waiting times for a diagnosis. My Department will consider how we can improve access to these services and a diagnostic pathway, but we also need to learn from best practice. The Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust has developed the maternity alcohol management algorithm pathway—why can people not come up with something snappier, like that first one? It has introduced screening and awareness of FASD, enabling what we think is effective early intervention. Just as the long-term plan gives different examples on smoking, with the Canada example on challenging smoking rates among pregnant women, I am interested in the best practice ideas and that trust has a lot to bring in this space. The Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust has a specialist centre, although sadly it is the only one in England. The trust provides a comprehensive and rapid diagnostic pathway for those with FASD and it has a lot to share from its journey and with its ideas for service delivery, and on the success it has had.
Bill Esterson
The Minister mentions Surrey and Borders, and I have had significant interaction with Dr Raja Mukherjee, the specialist who runs that centre. I am glad the Minister acknowledged that it is the only one in the country. May I encourage him to intervene to make sure we have such centres right across the country, as that would make a massive difference?
Steve Brine
The hon. Gentleman can certainly encourage me in that regard, and I will look at that in terms of the prevention paper. We would have to be guided by the clinicians and the CCGs on where they would see the greatest need for that provision to be. That is very much the spirit of the long-term plan, but it is not ideal that that centre is the only one. Surrey is near my constituency, but a long way from Sefton.
Finally, I wish to touch on the wider departmental policy engagement in this area. Our deputy chief medical officer, Gina Radford, has held roundtable meetings on the subject, which considered the future development of policy to improve prevention and support. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been involved in that. These meetings were attended by experts in the field and, crucially, FASD service users. I thank NOFAS UK—the National Organisation for Foetal Alcohol Syndrome-UK—which has been helpful in supporting and contributing to these meetings, along with other charities working in this field. We are also providing wider support to children and families affected by alcohol misuse, through the children of alcoholic dependant parents programme, which I am proud of. It was one of the first thing I got to announce in this job. The previous Secretary of State working as one with the current shadow Secretary of State had managed to do this, which shows that cross-party working can happen in this Parliament between the two main parties—and there were no preconditions to it.
Steve Brine
The preconditions did not come from this side; I filled it in nicely. Through that programme, we are investing some £6 million over three years to support a vulnerable group, as part of our new alcohol strategy.
The Government take alcohol concerns, across the board, very seriously and even more so when they relate to pregnancy. We are making progress—I hope—to prevent future FASD cases, and trying to change the landscape on prevention and treatment for those affected. But there is not an ounce of complacency in us—there certainly is not in me. We will continue to work towards improvements in the area. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that and I know, given his consistent work in this space, he will make sure he holds us to that and continues to raise awareness of the dangers of drinking alcohol during pregnancy in this House and outside. I thank him for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
Draft trade marks (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Trade Marks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
Chris Skidmore
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. Intellectual property is a vital part of the UK’s knowledge economy. The Government’s ambition, as part of our industrial strategy, is for the UK to be the most innovative country in the world, with a regulatory environment that supports that goal and encourages business to develop new ideas and technologies. The UK is renowned for having one of the best IP regimes in the world, and that will continue to be the case after our departure from the European Union. We will continue to deliver high-quality rights-granting services, lead best practice in enforcing IP rights, and retain our central involvement in international discussions on the development of a global IP system.
The Intellectual Property Office, which I am looking forward to visiting in Newport tomorrow morning, has been preparing for a range of outcomes to our negotiations with the EU. It is working to ensure that the IP system in the UK continues to function effectively once we have left the EU. The regulations, which were laid before the House on 28 November, form part of that preparation. They are necessary to ensure that the patent and trademark systems continue to function properly if no deal is agreed. In doing so, they give as much certainty and clarity for businesses as possible. The draft instruments use the powers granted by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to address deficiencies in retained law that would arise upon exit.
On the Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, the majority of UK patent law is domestic in origin or derives from various international agreements. Only a few specific areas are governed by EU legislation, and it is those that this instrument addresses. It focuses on supplementary protection certificates, which are a special type of IP right that applies to patented pharmaceuticals or agro-chemicals, which have to be authorised before they can be sold on the market. Because extensive testing is required to show that those products are safe for use, the authorisation process can prevent the full term of protection given by the patent from being exploited. SPCs are intended to offset that loss of time by giving an authorised product up to five and a half years’ additional protection after the expiry of the patent. They are provided by EU regulations that will be retained under the withdrawal Act.
SPCs take effect at a national level, so it will not be necessary to convert or replace existing rights on exit, as UK SPCs will continue to be enforced. However, it is still important to ensure that the current system remains functionally the same, so that users have certainty about the scope of their rights and the conditions in which those rights operate. The instrument therefore makes changes to the retained law, so that the SPC system can continue to operate effectively.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I have received a letter from the chief patent counsel of Lilly UK, outlining their concerns about the potential erosion of critical intellectual property protection. The life science industry is worried that patients might not be able to continue to access new and innovative medicines. Will the Minister confirm that the UK will remain a hub for world-leading research in the life sciences?
Chris Skidmore
Absolutely. That is why these regulations are so important in the event of a no-deal exit. Obviously, under the EU withdrawal deal and the framework for agreeing a deal with the EU, those rights will automatically be protected. Pharmaceutical companies with significant research and development industries—companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Pfizer—use the SPC regime. In 2016, nearly £4 billion was invested in research and development through the pharmaceutical industry.
I want to mention some of the individual drugs that have benefited from an SPC regime being in place. The blockbuster anti-cancer drug Humira was initially developed by Cambridge Antibody Technology in the UK. Cervarix from GSK, a vaccine that protects against cervical cancer, had global sales of £123 million in GSK’s last quarterly statement. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly valid point. We need certainty and stability to ensure that companies are able to continue to develop future products through R&D. Having this stability will ensure that future products can benefit from coming to market, and from the additional five and a half years’ protection that the SPC guarantees.
In particular, the draft instrument confirms that authorisations granted in the UK can continue to be used as the basis for an SPC application, and to determine the duration of an SPC. It also ensures that courts and tribunals competent to decide legal challenges to SPCs in the UK retain that jurisdiction. Other technical adjustments ensure that the SPC system is legally sound immediately after exit, and avoid discontinuity.
This approach of maintaining systems that users are familiar with also applies to other areas of patent law dealt with in this instrument, including the interaction of plant variety rights and the granting of compulsory licences for manufacturing a patented medicine for export to a country with a public health need.
The second statutory instrument before the Committee deals with European trademarks and their continued protection after our exit from the EU. It is currently possible to obtain trademark protection in the UK under the Trade Marks Act 1994, and in the European Union under the European trade mark regulation. The two systems run in parallel, so protection covering the UK may be obtained under either. There is also a great degree of harmonisation between the systems, so the protection provided is essentially the same.
Around 1.3 million EU trademarks are currently enforced, and around 10% are owned by UK businesses. After our exit from the EU, trademarks registered under EU regulation would no longer cover the United Kingdom, as it would cease to be a member state. To avoid any loss of rights, the Government have committed to the continued protection of EU trademark rights in the UK.
This instrument provides those replacement domestic rights on exit day. These created UK rights will be fully independent UK trademarks, which can be challenged, signed, licensed or renewed separately from the original EU trademark. This instrument also provides that these rights retain their original EU filing date and any other relevant dates relating to the original application.
Richard Graham
This is very important for three of the greatest trademarks in the United Kingdom: single Gloucester cheese, double Gloucester cheese and the Gloucestershire Old Spot pig. Could the Minister confirm that these trademarks will be protected regardless of whether we leave the European Union with a deal?
Chris Skidmore
Absolutely. Trademark protections that are currently in force will continue to be in force, as a result of these regulations. The specific brand names that my hon. Friend talked about are actually what are called agricultural geographical indications—GIs. They fall within the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but we recognise the close relationship between trademarks and GIs, and officials continue to work closely to provide a robust framework across all forms of intellectual property.
The policy on non-agricultural GIs is handled by the Intellectual Property Office. They are protected by the trademark system and therefore will continue to be protected in the UK in the same manner as outlined for trademarks. My hon. Friend, as the MP for Gloucester, cares passionately about protecting the origins of his cheese; having been on this Committee, he can go back to his constituents and tell them that he is doing all he can to protect the trademarking system in the UK, and to ensure stability and continuity for the cheese-making industry—and particularly for his constituents, and for employers in the locality.
The instrument also sets out how applications for EU trademarks that are pending on exit day, of which there are an estimated 85,000, will be handled. Those with pending applications will be able to file a new application with the Intellectual Property Office, claiming the earlier filing date of the EU application, within nine months of exit.
In conclusion, these regulations are a vital part of ensuring the intellectual property system continues to function if the no-deal outcome arises. They are essential for safeguarding rights and to provide maximum certainty and clarity. I commend them to the Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I think this is the first time I have had that pleasure. I look forward to the rest of the deliberations. I think this is the first time that the Minister and I have faced each other as Front Benchers, although we have occasionally crossed swords, if that is not overstating it, on—
Bill Esterson
Indeed. The Minister referred to the importance of the intellectual property regime in the United Kingdom. He was absolutely right to state in the terms he used the high regard in which it is held throughout the world. There are key questions for us about maintaining those high standards and that high reputation. In the digital era, that is perhaps more vital for businesses than it has ever been.
The operation of the patent and trademark system after exit day will play a key part in delivering business confidence. I fully welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to the business community to ruling out any prospect of no deal; that is most welcome to Opposition Members. I look forward to the Prime Minister’s making exactly the same commitment, in order to deliver the certainty for our economy that is so needed and desired by businesses, workers and consumers.
Of course, if we avoid no deal, the regulations before us become less of a challenge, but given that we have to prepare for every eventuality, we need to consider them, as the Minister says. Currently, patent law functions through domestic legislation, while EU law sets out legal provisions on the patenting of biotechnical inventions. That includes exceptions from patenting, the scope of any protection, and a compulsory licensing regime between overlapping patents and plant variety rights.
EU law also provides processes for a compulsory licence to be granted for UK manufacture of a patented medicine for export to a country with a public health need, and sets out an exception under which certain studies, trials and tests can be carried out using a patented pharmaceutical product without infringing the patent. Those provisions are being transposed under these regulations, but in these areas, questions arise to do with patented pharmaceutical products and agro-chemicals, where the EU provides for an additional period of protection after a patent has run out. I ask the Minister to address that.
In the no-deal notice, the Government advised:
“Supplementary protection certificate holders, applicants for supplementary protection certificates, and third parties may wish to familiarise themselves with any changes to the related regulatory processes (human and veterinary medicines and chemicals).”
What measure have the Government undertaken to promote those among stakeholders, and what progress has been made on certainty regarding the unified patent court? My understanding is that that is an EU-wide agreement, unlike the non-EU European Patent Office, which covers much of what is referred to in this statutory instrument.
As with all the recent SIs relating to no-deal planning, no impact assessment has been carried out of the regulations before us, and only informal consultation has taken place. That is something we have debated a number of times with the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst); perhaps the Minister can add this occasion to the list. One concern we have raised before, and which I know has been raised in written questions, is the cumulative impact of all these SIs. I draw to the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is concern about that within the business community, even if the Government do not see the need for individual impact assessments on specific regulations.
I also ask the Minister to confirm that separate UK and EU registration will be required for applications for intellectual property. Can he confirm what, if anything, is changing in that regard, given that, from my understanding, at present it is a non-EU body that manages EU-wide registration? Perhaps he can clarify exactly what will change in respect of patent applications, given that they are not an EU responsibility.
In relation to EU trademark applications pending on exit day, applicants may file a new UK trademark application within a period of nine months from exit day, maintaining the filing date, priority date, or seniority date. Can the Minister confirm what will happen after that nine-month period, and whether my understanding of the nine-period is indeed right? The draft regulations do not make reference to international trademark registrations or applications. What progress has been made with the World Intellectual Property Organisation to protect existing international registrations? This area is incredibly important, and the protection of IP is of immense value to businesses in the digital era. Getting it right is crucial.
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, but there are significant questions still to answer about what he seems to think are relatively minor changes. Even minor changes need to be addressed to make sure we get this right. I hope that we will not need these regulations, and I hope that he hopes the same, but we need to get them right in case we do.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. Having been on lots of financial services SI Committees, I am glad to have a change of scene.
I want to pick up where the Opposition Front Bencher left off. None of us wants these regulations. It seems bizarre that we spend so much time and money debating statutory instruments that we hope we will never have to use; we are in a quite antediluvian situation. I hope very much that in the coming days the Prime Minister will take the threat of no deal completely off the table, given the damage that it would do.
We do not know what damage the statutory instruments before us might do, because there is no impact assessment. The same was true in another delegated legislation Committee I was in last week, where I raised the same issue. As a Member of this House, I am very uncomfortable passing legislation in Committee, away from much scrutiny, without an impact assessment from the Government. For larger pieces of legislation, we would have an impact assessment. For other pieces of legislation, we might also get evidence. I am pleased that Lilly has sent us all a letter, because mostly, when we look at these measures, we have no evidence—only the Government’s word. I am not saying the Government’s word cannot be trusted, but that is all we have to go on, and that is not good enough for this or any other piece of delegated legislation that we consider. It feels as though these DLs are being rushed through, and the lack of evidence and an impact assessment is deeply worrying.
Turning to the trademark regulations, I understand that when this SI was debated in the Lords, they were not satisfied that it was explicit enough about what would happen if an international trademark were to be challenged in the courts: would it have to be challenged in the UK courts and in the European Court of Justice? Two sets of court actions would certainly mean that there was a greater effect on businesses. The Lords also sought clarity on the consultation process. Paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“In order to ensure that the changes being made would work in practice for users of the system, and would not result in any unintended consequences, the Intellectual Property Office held informal discussions with a small group of selected individuals with expertise in the relevant areas, or in patent law generally, to get feedback on the legal drafting of the instrument. Participants were provided with a draft of the instrument in advance.”
Businesses, not just lawyers, should have been consulted on the changes, given the scale of the differences. It is quite worrying.
The draft Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 were also considered in the Lords, where there was similar feedback on the consulting process and the lack of widescale engagement with the legislation. Again, the Government seem to have engaged with people they already know, rather than having consulted more widely on the impact on businesses across these islands. The explanatory memorandum also notes:
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because...it is designed to maintain the status quo”.
Preparation for a no-deal Brexit is not really the status quo; it is actually something quite different.
IP laws are important for innovation and for subsequent growth within the economy. Industry professionals are concerned that the exclusivity terms for medicine patents would be reduced in the UK. Anecdotally, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has raised this time and again on the Floor of the House and in other places. She is concerned that companies have said that a product would never be launched in the UK before the EU. That could have a serious impact on the competitive advantage to Scotland’s life sciences industry, which is an important growth industry in Scotland’s economy. She is also concerned about the impact on research and universities if products were no longer produced or trialled here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) has also raised the issue recently in the House. She has a medicines testing facility in her constituency. She is concerned about where it sits within these measures, because if fewer medicines are trialled and produced here, there will be fewer things to be tested, and that will have an impact on specialist jobs in her constituency.
I understand that Lord Warner raised concerns expressed by the BioIndustry Association, which said:
“Eroding intellectual property protection whilst also seeking global free trade deals sends a signal to industry that the UK Government may…erode protection as it seeks to quickly conclude deals. This would further impact the industry in the UK and further inward foreign investment.”
Scotland does fairly well when it comes to foreign direct investment—it enjoys the highest amount in the UK outside London—so this is a cause for deep concern. We want to be able to be part of that global industry, but not at the price of standards.
It is difficult to accept the Government’s assertion that these regulations would have a minimal effect on business; for companies conducting business outside the UK, it simply cannot be the case. It is very clear from Lilly’s letter how it will be affected. It says:
“We strongly believe that this statutory instrument must be amended or withdrawn.”
How does the Minister intend to deal with its serious concerns? It says:
“IP protection in the UK would be significantly diminished”
under a no-deal Brexit. The letter also laid out other concerns, and they need to be addressed because of the impact on companies, jobs and investment in wider society.
This is in the wider context of rising tensions over intellectual property, especially between the US and China. Scottish firms and consumers need the economic weight of the EU and the protection of the world’s largest trading bloc more than ever. Brexit will only reduce the protection of Scottish intellectual property on the world stage. This is a huge concern for universities, which have spin-offs and want to develop new products. I have that in my constituency, at Strathcylde University. It is keen to be innovative, but it needs reassurance on the issue.
To pick up on the concerns of the hon. Member for Gloucester, Scotland has many protected GIs, the most notable being Scotch whisky. It is an iconic industry for Scotland, and we need to make sure that it is not put at risk at any point. Our other GIs include Scottish salmon, Scottish lamb, Scottish beef, Arbroath smokies, Shetland lamb, Orkney beef, Orkney lamb, Bonchester cheese, Stornaway black pudding, Scottish wild salmon, native Shetland wool and traditional Ayrshire dunlop. We have lots of wonderful products in Scotland that we wish very much to protect.
The political declaration says:
“Noting the protection afforded to existing geographical indications in the Withdrawal Agreement, the Parties should seek to put in place arrangements to provide appropriate protection for their geographical indications.”
We do not have very long to go; there are 71 days until exit day, if I am correct. Still waiting to see and seeking to put things in place is not really good enough for me, and it is not good enough for the protection of these industries. With under three months to go, it is a disgrace that the Government are only now getting round to the details. Businesses, along with voters, have lost belief in the Government’s ability to navigate Brexit.
I reiterate my strong concerns about the lack of an impact assessment. I am not comfortable passing this piece of delegated legislation without it. The Government need to get that put in place. It is a huge concern that we are doing this blindfolded, without an impact assessment to give us an idea of the costs to which the measures would give rise.
Chris Skidmore
Let me address the points made in response to my opening speech. I welcome the continuing support from the hon. Member for Sefton Central for the compulsory licensing regime. He made points about what will change, and about whether the UK’s departure from the EU means leaving the European Patent Office and the European patent convention. Obviously, that international agreement is open to both EU and non-EU countries, and the UK is a founding member in its own right. Similarly, the European Patent Office was established by the convention and is not an EU institution. The UK will continue to participate in the EPO as at present, including as a member of the organisation’s administrative council. European patents granted by the EPO that have effect in the UK will continue to be granted following our exit from the EU.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central made a point about trade deals. The UK’s intellectual property regime is consistently rated as one of the best in the world. One of our priorities will be to ensure that future trade agreement negotiations do not have a negative impact on the standards and balance of the UK’s regime, or on its ability to promote trade in intellectual property. As we leave the European Union, the Government will continue to maintain our high level of protection of intellectual property, in line with our World Trade Organisation commitments. Any future trade deal negotiated by the UK will seek to be consistent with the UK’s membership of the international property conventions to which we are party.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the erosion of IP rights. We understand that innovators are concerned that the SI could mean a shorter effective period of protection in future, were they to bring their product to the UK market later than to the European economic area. The goal, however, is to minimise disruption; introducing a new way of calculating SPC would not provide the certainty and continuity that businesses tell us that they need, and could have unforeseen consequences. It would not be appropriate to make such a change without a full analysis of possible options and their effects. Above all, businesses tell us how important the current SP regime is to them.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central mentioned the pharmaceutical industry. It is important to reflect that the BioIndustry Association and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry have both said that SPC protection as it stands is
“key to incentivising the lengthy, risky and expensive process of pharmaceutical and biotech innovation. European benefits from a high standard of IP incentives in the form of SPCs.”
I gave examples earlier of some of the drugs for which SPC protection has been critical.
On the points made about consultation, the IPO conducted a confidential technical review of the draft legislation in the summer, to which it invited individual experts who had previously interacted with the IPO as part of their roles with relevant representative organisations or bodies. The IPO received useful feedback on the drafting, and on wider matters that were raised and fully discussed. That process helped to make the draft legislation better, and we appreciate the time and effort that those individuals put into it.
That is consistent with the approach being taken with respect to no-deal legislation across Government. The Government’s consultation principles are clear: consultations must have a clear purpose. The statutory instruments only make corrections to retained EU law, and are necessary to give the UK a functional statute book in the event of a no-deal exit. Consultation on wider policy changes would not have been meaningful or appropriate at this point in time, as that is not what the instruments do. As I have said, life sciences stakeholders, including the BioIndustry Association, have taken a number of opportunities to present their position to Government, and we are certainly aware of their views.
The SIs’ impact on businesses, which the hon. Member for Sefton Central mentioned, was assessed using the Better Regulation framework and in line with Her Majesty’s Treasury’s Green Book guidance. The impact was assessed against the static acquis baseline—existing EU regulations and directives—and the instruments simply fix deficiencies in law that will be retained under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They will allow current systems on regular provisions to continue to operate in a no-deal scenario. The impact analysis therefore focused on the direct impact of the relevant SI alone. Analysis of the wider impacts of the UK’s exit from the EU has been published in the form of the long-term economic analysis in November 2018.
With respect to the guidance that the Government intend to publish to let businesses know about the changes, technical notices were published in September. They gave an overview of how the patents and trademark system will operate in the event of no deal, and the instruments provide the legal detail behind that overview. We expect to publish guidance for businesses on the changes the instruments make that affect them, once Parliament has approved the instruments. In addition, on trademarks, the IPO will publish a notice in every language of the EU, so that right-holders in every member state will be able to access all the necessary information on how to administer their rights.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central mentioned trademarks and international trademarks, and the draft instrument does not include provisions on designs or international systems for trademark design protection. It focuses specifically on EU trademarks and domestic trademark law derived from EU legislation. An instrument setting out our intention to continue the protection of registered community designs, unregistered community designs and international trademark and design rights will be laid before Parliament and debated in due course. This draft instrument will ensure that registered rights are not lost. It will convert current EU trademark legislation into UK-equivalent rights, ensuring that rights protected before exit will continue to have protection in the UK after we leave the EU.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned business certainty. The relevant draft instrument provides for an additional nine months for those who need to register for a UK application. He also mentioned what will happen after those nine months. Failure to file a UK application within nine months from exit day will result in the applicant’s losing the right to claim an earlier EU date. This is an additional provision and protection that has been put in place.
Above all, the draft regulations are about ensuring certainty and control as we go forward. It is important to ensure that we have a workable system in place in the event of no deal. Of course, I do not wish to be in a no-deal scenario. If Members had voted differently a few days ago, we may have been in a place where we could begin to introduce and implement the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. However, I am confident that, by passing the draft regulations to ensure that we have that insurance mechanism in place, we can have the maximum possible stability in the event of no deal. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
draft Trade Marks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Marks (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.—(Chris Skidmore.)
Ministerial Correction
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Treasury
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Glen
Work is being done across the Treasury, the Home Office and the MOJ to look at how we can refine that.
[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 8 January 2019; c. 11.]
Letter of correction from The Economic Secretary to the Treasury:
Errors have been identified in my contribution to the debate on the Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds (Information) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
The correct statements should have been:
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Welcome back, everyone. I remind everyone to turn their phones to silent. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. Amendments on similar issues have been grouped together for debate, regardless of where they appear in the Bill. Decisions on amendments take place not in the order amendments are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper, which corresponds to the part of the Bill that each amendment affects.
Schedule 1
Schedule to be inserted as Schedule AA1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 30, in schedule 1, page 12, line 29, at end insert new sub-paragraph—
“(da) in the case of a cared-for person aged 16 or 17 (unless that person is subject to a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 or an interim care order under section 38 of that Act) the responsible body is satisfied that no person with parental responsibility objects to the arrangements,”.
This amendment makes provision enabling parents to object to care arrangements that give rise to their child’s deprivation of liberty.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Austin; you are working very hard on the Bill, as indeed we all are. Amendment 30 follows on from amendment 38, which would extend pre-authorisation reviews to 16 and 17-year-olds. Amendment 30 would provide that, where there is a person with parental responsibility for the cared-for person, an authorisation may be made only if the person with parental responsibility does not object to that authorisation. We believe that would ensure the Bill does not create a situation where the responsible body is able to override the wishes of 16 and 17-year-olds’ parents to deprive them of their liberty.
I appreciate that case law in this area is not abundant, but one relevant case in point is Y v. Barking and Dagenham, which I mentioned when we debated amendments regarding the role of care home managers. Despite agreeing to Y’s placement, his parents became concerned about the standard of care he was receiving. The local authority deprivation of liberty safeguards application made no mention of the concerns they had raised. Subsequently, the parents withdrew their consent for Y to remain at the care home.
Around the time Y’s deprivation of liberty was granted, a member of staff at the care home was reported as having assaulted Y. That was raised with the local authority, but Y’s parents were not informed. The local authority then applied for a care order for Y, and the social worker reviewing the request dismissed the parents’ concerns. When the case eventually went to court, the local authority admitted that it had dismissed the parents’ concerns without proper investigation.
I believe parental objection is an important principle, which is currently missing from the Bill in relation to deprivation of liberty for 16 and 17-year-olds. Its omission means that the Bill is out of step with the Children Act 1989 and there may be conflict between the two. In particular, there is a lack of reference in the Bill to the role of parents in making decisions about the placement of their child. As I just described, in Y v. Barking and Dagenham, Y’s parents withdrew their consent for Y’s placement in the care home in which he was residing. Under section 20 of the Children Act, parents can object to their child’s placement and remove their child from that placement. In paragraph 20 of proposed new schedule AA1, the Bill provides that certain people must be consulted, but the main purpose of consultation set out in paragraph 20(2) is to ascertain the cared-for person’s wishes or feelings about the arrangement. That does not address parents’ views about the arrangements for their child.
Without our amendment, the liberty protection safeguards provisions would allow a local authority to make arrangements that deprive young people of their liberty without the agreement of their parents. Further, it would allow the local authority to do so without needing to obtain a court order. That is not the case under the Children Act, so there is clearly a conflict, which we must address. I see the amendment as by no means contentious. It is very much in the spirit of what has been suggested to widen the scope of liberty protection safeguards to 16 and 17-year-olds, including the extension of pre-authorisation reviews by approved mental capacity professionals. It is a key component of the Children Act, as it should be of the Bill.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Austin. As I said in a previous sitting, children and young people have always been my focus in politics, and the measures that impact 16 and 17-year-olds are some of the most important in the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, amendment 30 would make provision to enable the parents of a 16 or 17-year-old to object to care arrangements that gave rise to deprivation of their liberty. Not unlike in many other parts of the Bill, there is a severe lack of clarity about the role of parents. We must make that clearer. The law regarding young people is already very complex, and the Bill just seems to add to that complexity. There is real concern out there in the community about the lack of recognition of parental rights under the LPS system.
Parents fall within the group of people to be consulted about the young person’s views of the care arrangements, but there is no acknowledgement at all that parents have the right to make decisions about the young person’s placement. That seems to me to undermine the Children Act 1989, which provides for parents being able to object to the young person’s placement and to remove their child. Does the Minister agree that there is such a conflict? If authorities want to overrule parental wishes about the care of their child, they must go through the legal and court proceedings to do so.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As well as being against the 1989 Act, does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is common sense for parents to be at the heart of any DoLS? It is not good to be sidelining them on what is, in effect, the issue of the health and wellbeing of their children.
Alex Cunningham
That is very much the case. I always try to place myself into such a situation. I am at the grandfather stage of life now, and I think about how that would affect the children of my children, or other parts of my family who have children. I would most certainly want them to be at the centre of it—I would probably try to interfere a bit myself as well.
The Children Act, however, provides protection—it is a real safeguard—and yet the Bill is not at all clear about how it will sit with that existing legislation. Surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South suggested, parents must be consulted and have that ability to make decisions about their child, even if they are 16 or 17. We must ensure that such safeguards are enhanced, not watered down or in conflict with each other.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has highlighted to me that encompassing 16 and 17-year-olds in the Bill can be positive where they lack capacity to make their own decisions, but that must be authorised by an appropriate safeguarding system. The RCP shares my belief that a parent or legal guardian with capacity to make the decision should be able to authorise the required deprivation of liberty.
Many social workers and other professionals in the field have made submissions. There is a strong consensus that additional safeguards should be available where objection is made by a person with parental responsibility. The Mencap submission, too, welcomes the inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds in the Bill, but it also expressed concern that we might be reducing protections and eroding parental rights. Mencap has asked the Government to conduct further public consultation on the measures for 16 and 17-year-olds to understand the implications fully.
Does the Minister believe that the Government have consulted properly on the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds? Clearly, the organisations with an interest in such matters do not think so. Will she commit to undertake a rapid consultation exercise ahead of Report, in the hope that we in Committee can be reassured about parental rights and the very necessary protections for young people?
Mencap highlighted the particular uncertainty about how the new system works alongside existing legislation. I have already talked about that, but a complex web of legislation and guidance relates to those young people who might fall under the LPS system, including looked-after children. My hon. Friend, however, has already spoken about that. It is essential for the Minister to provide clarity in such areas, preferably now but certainly before Report.
In closing, I will make a general point about involving parents in all manner of processes in the health and social care world. For them to be excluded from the process, denied the right to report or told simply that the authorities know best must be an exception. It is not always the case that the authorities know best. At times, I have a tremendous caseload of parents coming to talk to me about issues affecting their children and how they feel excluded.
I put it to the Minister, if a child affected in a particular case was one whom she knew personally, one whose parents she has had contact with, would she be content for them not to have every possible access to information or not to be consulted at every stage? I remind her that a child is being deprived of liberty—this is an opportunity to lock a child up, basically. We need to understand and empathise with parents in their desire to be consulted in the decision-making process, and I believe that the amendment would go a long way to ensuring that that actually happened.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you again in the Chair, Mr Austin.
It is important to reflect at this point that the purpose of this legislation is to take an existing cumbersome system and to try to make one that works, but of course we are putting a new focus on 16 and 17-year-olds while we do that. So it is important that we have good consideration about how we can do it in the safest way, and in the way that best reflects the needs of the individual and of their family in general.
We will all be aware that social media can skew our view of these things, but the very high-profile cases on social media of young people who are in the settings that we are talking about today, and just how difficult that is for the parents and those young people themselves, mean that we should take every step we can to make what is an exceptionally difficult situation as best as it can be for those parents.
This issue came up in one of our previous discussions—it was raised by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis—when we were talking about access for parents as a matter of course, which I think we will come back to when we consider a later amendment. The idea was discussed that we would not want to put something in the Bill that would give access to a child to someone who was not supposed to be given access at that point.
I reflected on that point, because it is obviously very important, but I do not think that it actually applies in this situation. I was using, as an analogous case, the idea of a parent’s right to have input into their children’s education. If that parent is subject to a non-molestation order, that right falls away, so I do not think that there is anything that we would put in this Bill that would supersede that.
In a similar vein, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North used the phrase “with capacity”, regarding the parents being involved. Again, therefore, nothing that we are doing here would supersede the fact that if that parent was not able—
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some serious points, but I just want to probe one of them. If we are seeking to protect the best interests of a child, there may frequently be circumstances in which those best interests are not necessarily served by having parental involvement, because of the complexity of a particular case or the psychiatric condition of a particular child, and somehow that needs to be reflected.
Alex Norris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because that point is really important. It is perfectly conceivable that the heart might override the head and parents might be so desperate to keep their family together—which we can all relate to—that they might make decisions that are not the best decisions.
Again, however, that would mean entry into a pre-existing legislative space, in the sense that if a parent were acting negligently, we already have a series of protections for a child in that case. So, if we have what we are talking about today in law and then we have a case of the kind that the hon. Gentleman and I are both talking about, that would tip into a negligence situation, and therefore I think the matter would still be unresolvable in the best interests of the child. So I do not think that anything that we are suggesting here in this amendment would disqualify any of that.
I think the amendment is proportionate: it would just give that extra layer of protection. We understand that the cohort that we are talking about are particularly vulnerable; we understand the impact that this change would also have on parents; and we understand that fundamentally parents will want the best for their children. However, we also understand fundamentally that if a bad decision were being made by a parent, there are other sources to make sure that a young person’s needs are being met.
Actually, when we add all that together, I think the amendment would put in significant safeguards and important protections for both young people and their parents, but without creating a situation where we might unknowingly create some risk and perhaps do some harm.
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
As ever, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin.
I thank Opposition Members for initiating a discussion on this really important matter. Parents, or those with parental responsibility, have a vital role in caring for their children—of course they do—especially when the child lacks mental capacity. We would fully expect that the responsible body took every opportunity to consult parents with regard to their views about arrangements, where it was appropriate to do so as part of the consultation process, and we will make that clear at every stage in the regulations.
However, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North and my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis have said, we have to allow for the very rare occasions on which parents may not have the best interests of their children at heart. That is why we have to be careful about adding this provision to the Bill.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
My hon. Friend might be coming to exactly this point but, having been involved in some of the conversations about the review of the Mental Health Act 1983, I know that lots of concern was expressed about families feeling that they were not involved enough in the care of their relatives and in decisions about them being detained, for instance. I am keen for her to reassure us that parents will not be overlooked and will be involved, so long as they are acting in the best interests of their child.
Caroline Dinenage
Absolutely; we completely agree that objections raised by parents about the arrangements should be considered with the utmost care and attention. That is why we have already built those safeguards into the authorisation process. The Bill states that an approved mental capacity professional must conduct the pre-authorisation reviews where it is reasonable to believe that the person objects to the arrangements, and it clarifies that an objection can be raised on a person’s behalf by someone interested in their welfare. For the vast majority of 16 and 17-year-olds, of course, that would include their parents. In those cases we would expect an approved mental capacity professional to consider the objection carefully, meet both the person and their parents, and establish how they feel.
I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South about how the legislation relates to the Children Act 1989. I can confirm that the advice I have been given is that nothing in the Bill conflicts with that Act, or indeed with any other existing legislation. The hon. Lady may also be aware that the role of parental consent in the deprivation of liberty is currently being considered by the Supreme Court, and of course the Government will closely consider the implications of that judgment when it is handed down. The hon. Member for Stockton North spoke about the consultation on this issue, which of course was part of the Law Commission’s recommendations on the inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds, and all the aspects of that. They spent three years working on those recommendations and consulted widely with stakeholders, including children’s charities, third-sector organisations, social workers and education providers.
Our view on the amendment is clear. Although almost all parents have their child’s best interests at the heart of everything they do, a tiny minority do not—maybe for good reasons; maybe for reasons of heart over head, as one Member has said today—and those are the children we have to protect. Parents should be at the heart of the process and they must be consulted where appropriate, but the person whose wishes and feelings must be at the dead centre of that process is the individual whose mental capacity is deemed not to be there. I hope that I have been able to provide clarification. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South to withdraw the amendment.
Barbara Keeley
As I said earlier, it is welcome that the Bill expands eligibility to 16 and 17-year-olds, because it prevents them from slipping through the gaps that the Bill would otherwise create. However, I persist in the view that there are issues with the way the Bill interacts with the Children Act 1989. The difference is that under section 20 of that Act, parents can object to their child’s placement and can also remove their child from that placement.
I gave an example—the case of Y v. Barking and Dagenham—in which parental objections were overlooked by the responsible body. The key point is that there are many other such cases, as I am sure the Minister knows—she probably hears about them even more often than I do. That was a recent case, but it resulted in significant harm. That young person, still a child, was kept in a care home and deprived of his liberty for two years. He was restrained 199 times. He was assaulted by somebody in the care home, but the social worker only listened to opinions from the care home. The amendment is a safeguard, and it is vital that we put it into the Bill to prevent similar cases being enabled by the Bill. I put it to the Minister that she will be enabling more such cases if she does not include this provision on parental objections.
Caroline Dinenage
Can I just challenge that? Under the existing Mental Capacity Act 2005 there is recourse to the Court of Protection for the parents. Their views have to be taken into consideration, but if they feel in any way, shape or form that the best interests of their child are not being followed, they have that recourse to the law, and the amendment of the Act does not change that.
Barbara Keeley
Indeed, and we will be talking more about the Court of Protection, which is of course an important safeguard. However, parents should not have to have recourse to the court just to express objections and get them listened to. The Court of Protection is a good safeguard, but recourse to the law involves expert advice and all kinds of things. I shall discuss that in relation to a later amendment, but for ordinary people it is a serious matter to take on.
Sometimes the Minister encounters, as I do, parents who are confident enough to challenge things, go to the media and make a stir, but I have just given a strong example where a young person was kept in appalling conditions and was hurt and damaged. Such cases affect a young person’s ability to live in a home or community situation and should be avoided. Two years of detention in an unsuitable home, assault, and being restrained 199 times will surely lead to traumatic stress. That is why I think that the amendment is important, and why we will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 51, in schedule 1, page 12, line 40, at end insert—
“(h) the cared for person has access to an Approved Mental Capacity Professional”.
This amendment is designed to probe that the responsible body could not authorise arrangements for the deprivation of liberty under Clause 15 if the cared for person does not have access to reasonable support and consideration by an Approved Mental Capacity Professional.
It is good to see you in the Chair once again, Mr Austin. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South a grave concern about the care home arrangements in the Bill generally. Earlier in the week she made a persuasive case for the Minister to look again at the whole set of arrangements. I continue to worry that there is a potential conflict in the way they will operate, which may not be in the best interests of the people whose interests should be at the front of our minds.
I hope that I shall be able to explain my reason for tabling the amendment sufficiently well to persuade the Minister at least to consider my concerns. Paragraph 15 of the new schedule AA1 that schedule 1 would insert into the 2005 Act requires a number of conditions to be satisfied, including with reference to the
“determinations required by paragraphs 18 and 19”.
However, under proposed new paragraph 18, the assessment
“must be carried out by a person who appears”—
they need only appear—
“to the relevant person to have appropriate experience and knowledge.”
I do not quite know how that would be determined if it were challenged in a legal setting, but I would have thought that those who are giving that responsibility would want a little more assurance than the mere appearance of appropriate experience.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
Are experience and knowledge enough without having the skills?
Steve McCabe
I defer to my hon. Friend’s much greater expertise in the area, but my gut instinct is to say, “Absolutely not.” I would have thought that skills were an essential third part of the equation.
The person need only appear to have the appropriate knowledge. Proposed new paragraph 15 also requires that appropriate consultation be carried out and so forth, but it reads to me like a checklist. The Minister made it clear to the Committee on Tuesday that she does not want a checklist or tick-box approach to assessment or to decisions to restrict a person’s liberty—the fact that she is absolutely against such an approach was probably one of the most reassuring things that we heard from her. However, we also heard that the Law Society has expressed concern about the relatively limited situations in which a cared-for person has access to an approved mental capacity professional; it recommends that having that access should be the default position in the majority of cases.
I concede that my amendment is very poorly drafted. The Minister will have no difficulty in pointing out its deficiencies in that respect; I am sure that the people who advise and assist her could do a vastly superior job of drafting it. However, the key issue that I am trying to raise relates to the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South that a cosy or somewhat collusive arrangement could develop if the care home manager has too much influence over who is engaged to carry out these activities. Before the responsible body authorises the arrangements, I want it to be completely satisfied that all the conditions have been fully complied with and that the vulnerable person has had access to an appropriate AMCP.
I am prepared to accept that there may well be circumstances—the Minister drew on the experience of her relative, who has sadly passed away—in which access to an approved mental capacity professional does not necessarily require extensive involvement. For example, if there is already an abundance of information and evidence to support the decision, it seems a pointless exercise to engage someone in an extensive role. I assume that is part of the thinking behind the Minister’s efforts to streamline the process. I would be the first to concede that point, but we need to be absolutely sure that the person who is engaged has the appropriate experience, knowledge and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South says—skills. That is surely key to being able to determine whether any of those conditions are appropriately met, other than simply through a checklist or tick-box system.
Alex Cunningham
Age UK agrees with my hon. Friend’s point and proposes an extension to it, through the involvement of an AMCP every time a family member objects, or if the cared-for person has no family members to object on their behalf. Does he agree with that position?
Steve McCabe
Absolutely; I agree entirely. That makes more sense than the way I have been saying it.
I accept that the amendment is clumsy and not well drafted, but I hope that it is clear that, more than anything, we need to hear—all the better if it happens before our proceedings conclude—and then see in black and white a cast-iron guarantee that the arrangements will not be used in a way that ends up being detrimental to the interests of the person about whom we should be most concerned. That is the purpose of the amendment. We can have some confidence that all those conditions have been appropriately and properly satisfied only if we have confidence that a professional with the appropriate experience, knowledge and skills, who is valiantly independent and capable of looking at it in the round, has been a key component of that decision.
Barbara Keeley
I thank my hon. Friend for moving the amendment. The Committee has already considered the principles that he has discussed, but I am glad to have the opportunity to return to them, because the role of the AMCP is a big part of the schedule, which I am sure we will come back to.
The aim of the amendment is to ensure that all people subject to the liberty protection safeguards have their case considered by an approved mental capacity professional. On Tuesday morning I discussed a range of cases where we thought that it was crucial that the approved mental capacity professional should review the case. I was talking about specific cases, but an AMCP review would be beneficial in all cases, because it would bring independent scrutiny from a professional with experience in such matters. We will talk about the issue of skills shortly, which comes into it as well.
An AMCP review can only be a good thing. It would ensure that even lower risk cases than the ones I spoke about were properly scrutinised, so that cared-for people would be at less risk of being inappropriately deprived of their liberty. That is what it is all about, really; that is what we on the Opposition side are doing. I am sure that we and the Government are of one mind on the important role that approved mental capacity professionals can play, which is why we will support Government amendment 9 when it is put to the Committee, and why I hope that they will support our amendments 37, 38 and 39.
Alex Cunningham
I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak does himself down, because this is a good amendment. He is actually doing the Minister a favour, because we have talked about resources, and if we agree to the amendment there will be less associated cost. If we get the assessment right first time, it will not be laid open to challenge or repetition, and the system will be more efficient in the longer term.
Barbara Keeley
Yes, I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak should not run down his amendment, because it has provoked a useful debate. The purpose of the amendment is to expand the number of people who receive an AMCP review. It goes further than the amendments that I tabled, but we support it in principle, and I hope the Minister will consider it carefully.
Caroline Dinenage
I thank the honourable—I seem to be test-driving someone else’s teeth today, Mr Austin. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak for raising the issue and facilitating an important discussion. I have absolutely no doubt of his dedication and good intentions in the matter. I wish to offer him some reassurance, because the Bill already requires that an approved mental capacity professional carries out the pre-authorisation review where an objection has been raised. In such cases, authorisation cannot be granted unless the pre-approved mental capacity professional is 100% satisfied that the authorisation conditions are met. Amendment 9 would strengthen this provision, as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South mentioned.
Should an approved mental capacity professional not complete the pre-authorisation review, it would be completed by someone who is not involved
“in the day-to-day care of the cared-for person…in providing any treatment to the cared-for person, or…who has a prescribed connection with a care home.”
We believe that this would ensure that the pre-authorisation reviewer is sufficiently independent. We expect that the review would be completed by professionals such as social workers, nurses or physicians. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak talked about the use of the term “appropriate experience”, which is set out very clearly in extensive case law.
Steve McCabe
I am grateful to the Minister for that. Why does the wording suggest that the person should “appear” to have the appropriate experience? That does not sound quite as precise to me. Perhaps I am having difficulty comprehending this, but “appears” seems to suggest that there is an element of doubt or vagueness about the situation.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is questioning aspects of legal terminology, on which I am not a huge expert. I am happy to get back to him on that in due course.
The hon. Gentleman referred to my personal family experience. I shall not share my life story, but my uncle’s situation is only the most recent experience that I have had of the whole system. I have far more than one family experience of this, which is why I am very keen to ensure that the Bill not only offers as much protection as it can, but works effectively and is as streamlined as possible. I have seen the effects of the delays not only in my constituency office, but in my personal life.
We have to be super careful not to denigrate in any way our care home staff, which I have spoken about before. So many of them work with great professional integrity. We have to be super careful about saying that a care home cannot be trusted not to interfere in the way the judgment is made. Clause 21 sets out clearly that the review would have to be completed by somebody who is not involved
“in the day-to-day care of the cared-for person…in providing any treatment to the cared-for person, or…who has a prescribed connection with a care home.”
The amendment would move away from having a targeted system, which allows authorisations to be in place more quickly, and would effectively recreate the current DoLS system. We cannot allow that to happen.
The hon. Gentleman talked about detriment to the interests of the individual. At the moment, the biggest detriment to the interests of 125,000 individuals is that they are sitting on a backlog. Some 48,000 have been sitting there for more than a year, which I am sure is not his intention. I cannot support the amendment and I ask him to withdraw it.
Steve McCabe
I am prepared to concede that the Minister has offered some reassurance—as a doubting Thomas, I would like an awful lot more. To be terribly honest, I am not that convinced. “Appear” is not a technical legal term; it is a description of the professional who would review a cared-for person’s situation for determination. Clause 18 sets out that the
“assessment must be carried out by a person who appears to the relevant person to have appropriate experience and knowledge.”
There is nothing too technical or legal about that. I say as gently as possible that if I were the Minister, I might go back to my officials and have another conversation about that in order to establish exactly why that wording has been chosen.
The Minister knows the Opposition’s view. She knows the view of quite a number of important organisations that are involved in this work day in, day out. It is probably better if I agree to withdraw the amendment now and take it on trust that the Minister will look further at our concerns. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 32, in schedule 1, page 13, line 46, at end insert—
“(aa) a determination made on an assessment in respect of the cared-for person as to whether the person’s capacity is likely to fluctuate, and”.
This amendment requires that an assessment of whether a person’s capacity is likely to fluctuate is included within the initial capacity and medical assessments, and therefore seeks to ensure that fluctuating capacity is reflected in the care plan of the cared-for person.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 31, in schedule 1, page 13, leave out lines 47 and 48 and insert—
“(b) a determination made on an assessment by a registered medical practitioner in respect of the cared-for person that the person has a mental disorder.”
This amendment would require the medical assessment to be carried out by a registered medical practitioner.
Amendment 33, in schedule 1, page 14, line 2, after “appropriate” insert “skills,”.
This amendment would require the person carrying out a medical or capacity assessment to have the appropriate skills to do so, as well as the appropriate experience and knowledge.
Paula Sherriff
It is a particular honour to speak for the very first time from the Front Bench in a Bill Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I will speak to the amendments and ask some questions of the Minister about the parts of schedule 1 to which they relate.
Amendment 32 relates to people who may have fluctuating capacity to consent and would require an assessment of whether a person’s capacity is likely to fluctuate to be included within the initial capacity and medical assessments. It therefore seeks to ensure that fluctuating capacity is reflected in the care plan of the cared-for person. It is our intention that the assessor must state whether the capacity of the person is likely to fluctuate and, if so, the likely duration of any period during which the person is likely to have capacity to consent to those arrangements.
This group of people were mentioned at length in the Law Commission’s draft Bill, but are conspicuous by their absence from the Government’s proposals. The Law Commission identified this point as a significant weakness in the DoLS system, as fluctuating capacity is dealt with entirely within the code of practice rather than in the legislation. I hope the Minister can explain why the Government’s Bill differs from the Law Commission’s proposals in this regard.
When the Law Commission launched its consultation, despite not specifically seeking views on fluctuating capacity, it was clear that it was a major concern for practitioners. One psychiatrist told it that
“the ‘black and white’ nature of the Mental Capacity Act’s approach to capacity fails to reflect the reality and complexity of fluctuating capacity.”
The Law Commission found that when it comes to fluctuating capacity, there is a disconnection between legislation and practice. That applies generally in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but raises specific issues when it comes to deprivation of liberty. There is little consistency in how different care settings treat fluctuating capacity. The Law Commission visited one care home where everyone with fluctuating capacity was deemed not to have capacity at any point, which meant that they received safeguards, but even on good days they were not able to make their own decisions. At another care home, everyone with fluctuating capacity was deemed to have capacity at all times. Although that gave them greater autonomy, it also meant that they did not have the safeguards that the Mental Capacity Act provides for.
The Bill does not change the status quo. It requires a binary decision to be made—either the person has capacity or they do not. The Law Commission found it unacceptable for the legislative framework to simply ignore fluctuating capacity, as it exposes health and social care professionals and those authorising a deprivation of liberty to significant legal risk. I hope the Minister will give the Committee her own assessment. Does she accept the Law Commission’s warnings on that risk? Will she explain why the Government have not adopted those proposals?
The amendment would introduce a degree of nuance and reduce that risk. Requiring fluctuating capacity to be considered and recorded lays the foundation for authorisations that vary based on changes in somebody’s capacity. Inclusion also has other benefits, which the Law Commission raised and which the amendment would reinstitute. Inclusion provides access to important legal rights, such as rights to representation and support by an advocate or another appropriate person. We will return to that point in the discussion on amendment 45, where we will set out what it means in more detail, but I hope that the principle will receive the Government’s consideration and support.
This group of amendments and the section of the Bill they seek to amend may seem technical, but they go to the heart of one of the most serious issues that we as parliamentarians ever consider: the circumstances under which the citizens we represent can be denied the liberty that it is our historic role to safeguard. I hope that the Minister will address our points and, if she accepts the principles behind it, accept the amendment.
Dr Williams
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, for the first time. I will add a few words on fluctuating capacity to those of my hon. Friend. Everyone in the room knows that mental capacity can fluctuate. In this case, we are talking about the capacity to decide whether someone consents to deprivation of their liberty.
James Morris
This group of amendments raises some important issues. I want to probe one point: from a diagnostic point of view, establishing whether somebody has a fluctuating capacity is not a trivial issue. That may mean either that the type of professional who can make that diagnosis is unavailable, or that a different process to establish whether there is a fluctuating capacity issue is required. My point is that the intervention into the process that the amendments would require is not trivial.
Dr Williams
The hon. Gentleman is right: it is a significant intervention that may well require not only a person with significant skills, knowledge and experience, but a series of different assessments over time to make the judgment.
Mr Dhesi
As the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis just pointed out, a medical practitioner who can diagnose whether somebody has fluctuating capacity may be unavailable, in which case we should definitely not disregard the Law Commission’s advice. Otherwise, we open ourselves to legal challenge and other things. In the long run that would be to the detriment of not only the cared-for person but the system itself in terms of extra costs and distress.
Dr Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for referring to the Law Commission’s recommendations.
I am sure that the Government will argue that the substance of the amendment will be reflected in the code of practice, but it is so important and so fundamental that it needs to be reflected in the Bill. Obviously, somebody may well have the capacity to consent to different decisions. Capacity is not just assessed over a period of time; assessments depend on the decision that somebody is going to make. Somebody may well have the capacity to decide whether they want tea or coffee, but may not have the capacity to decide all the time whether they consent to their deprivation of liberty.
Anyone who has ever spent any time with somebody who has capacity issues—we are usually talking about people who have a dementia, as the majority of people who have fluctuating capacity, though not all, have a dementia—will know that people have good and bad days. Sometimes people have good and bad hours. It is common for someone to say, “She was bright and sharp this morning,” or, “He’s not quite himself tonight.”
Acute illness can affect capacity, but so can sleep, stress and nutrition. The very nature of memory issues means that people fluctuate in and out of having capacity sometimes. In the same way, many physical issues have a fluctuating nature. People with arthritis have good and bad hours, and good and bad days. Rheumatoid arthritis is typically worse in the mornings.
The amendment is fundamental because the assessments of capacity that are made as part of the authorised deprivation conditions are likely to determine the length of the liberty protection safeguard. At the least, they may be one of the important determinants of the length of the safeguard—possibly the most important. In deciding how long the safeguards should apply, it is imperative to know whether someone has fluctuating capacity. As I have indicated, that might require more than one assessment of capacity.
Helen Whately
I spoke about my concerns about fluctuating capacity on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman just mentioned that in these discussions, we usually think about someone with dementia, but it has been flagged to me that sometimes the Mental Capacity Act has been used to detain people who have other serious mental health conditions—not necessarily just dementia. Those conditions very much fluctuate, too. It is important that the Bill addresses the fluctuating capacity of people with serious mental illness if they might be detained under the Bill. I am keen for the Minister to respond on that point.
Dr Williams
The hon. Lady’s words are wise. The fact that people’s capacity is likely to fluctuate makes them uniquely vulnerable to the wrong decisions being made about them.
My assessment is that it is better to err on the side of caution. People with fluctuating capacity are likely to need regular review. The liberty protection safeguards are likely to be put in place for shorter periods. Unless that assessment of fluctuating capacity is mandatory and put front and centre of the decision-making process about the length of the safeguard, there is a risk that the wrong decisions will be made. For that reason, I support amendment 32 as a fundamental requirement to assess whether the cared-for person’s capacity is likely to fluctuate.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury and for Stockton South, who made compelling arguments that I hope to add to a little.
On fluctuation, by definition we are talking about some of the most challenged individuals in society. As a result, their medication needs could be significant, and the nature of their challenges can change over time. It is not only conceivable but probable that those individuals’ needs may vary. Therefore, the protections we need to give them may have to be slightly flexible.
Behind the Cheshire West case and the television documentaries that make us all throw our hands up in the air and think, “Goodness me, how awful”, is the idea that none of us thinks that someone whose liberty needs to be taken away for their own protection should ever be put away and forgotten about. None of us wants that at all. That is in keeping with the theme of wiring into the Bill the understanding that we are talking about human beings, and that things change and their conditions change, as they do with us all. Therefore, we may need to change the way they are looked after and supported.
I reflect on the point the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis put so well; on Tuesday I was wringing my hands about my past anxieties about the lack of assessing capacity. I then put my name to an amendment that asks for greater specialism among those assessors as people who could pick up something that, as the hon. Gentleman said, was not trivial. I understand his view but do not completely share it. We want to include in the Bill the possibility that an individual’s needs may fluctuate—not how those needs will fluctuate. It would not necessarily mean that all the assessors have to have the ability to make that judgment. If the assessment says, “There is a reasonable chance that this individual’s needs may fluctuate,” that puts a “So what?” test on the responsible body, which may say, “Okay. We may therefore need to call in someone who has that specialism at an appropriate moment.” That could be covered in the code of practice. I do not think that test puts an unreasonable or unnecessary burden on the assessing capacity, which is finite.
I support the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury made. Most of this discussion has been framed around the idea that some people are deprived of their liberty because they are deemed not to have the capacity to look after themselves, but because their needs fluctuate, that may not have needed to happen. As my hon. Friend said, there is another cohort of people who are assessed not to have fallen into a deprivation situation, but that might not be safe for them either. It is important that we bring that into the discussion. This is not just about people who are deprived of their liberty when that may not need to be the case; it is also about people who, the vast majority of the time, are not in those circumstances, but in a conceivable situation relating to their personal health challenges, may need to be deprived of their liberty. That is a really important point.
Amendments 31 and 33 get to the nub of what we have been talking about for the past two and a half sittings. What are we trying to do with assessment? If the Bill tilts towards moving assessment away from local authority-hosted social work into care settings, with the people who are around the individual the most and have great familiarity with them, the Opposition have expressed some discomfort about that. Nobody is arguing for perfunctory or tick-box assessments—hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been clear about that. With amendment 33, we want to put on the face of the Bill a requirement that the people who carry out assessments have the right qualifications—I hope that will apply to pre-authorisation assessments, too—so we have the confidence to say to people, after this Bill has wended its way through Parliament, that we have not created a system that has moved away from skilled assessment, which is expensive, finite and a challenge in this country, towards unskilled assessment because it is easier or cheaper. Nobody wants that; I certainly do not. By putting that on the face of the Bill, we can give comfort to the people who observe our proceedings and those who will engage with us during the Bill’s progress that we are not seeking to do that.
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. As a former trustee of Alzheimer’s & Dementia Support Services, which dealt with people with very serious vulnerabilities, I can attest to the fact that amendments 31 and 33 are entirely sensible and should be incorporated in the Bill. Not having a registered medical practitioner undertaking these assessments, especially when we are dealing with very vulnerable individuals, would be detrimental to the entire process.
Alex Norris
I appreciate that intervention. One of my favourite things about being in this place—certainly in Bill Committees, out of the white heat of the Chamber—is that we learn a lot that we did not know about people’s knowledge and expertise, whether it is personal experience, professional experience or experience from their spare time. It helps us all. That contribution adds to the debate, and I greatly appreciate it.
These amendments will help to give confidence that what we are all trying to achieve here will be achieved in the Bill. I would expect it to be enhanced by the code of practice, but in law and in statute, in the Bill, we in this place will have made a clear commitment about what sort of legislation we want. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham
As colleagues may remember, on Tuesday I mentioned my past as a journalist, public relations manager and communications manager—something, I have found out, that I share with you, Mr Austin.
Alex Cunningham
A noble profession. We have brought tremendous expertise to this place as a result.
Alex Cunningham
I have no experience, however, as a health or medical practitioner, so I bow to my next-door neighbour in the north-east of England, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South, who is a medical doctor and knows about these things—probably a lot of things that I will never have any understanding of myself. However, I do not need to be a medical expert to know that if I were to suffer a heart attack, a cardiologist would be involved in my treatment and care. I hope my hon. Friend will nod his head to say I am right.
Alex Cunningham
He does. I know that if I were to develop cancer, oncologists would be involved. I know that medical experts should be and are involved with that level of illness, which requires ongoing treatment and observation. They are the experts, and they know the field; we have to trust what they say and follow their instructions on what is best to do. It just strikes me as ludicrous that anybody could disagree with the notion that people carrying out medical and capability assessments must have the skills to do so. We have already seen in our country in recent years the terrible mess that is the various capability assessments for employment and support allowance, personal independence payments and, lately, the discredited universal credit system.
Dr Williams
I wondered whether to refer to the work capability assessments, but it is certainly true that in my experience as both a medic and a Member of Parliament, people have often described the inadequacy of the assessments, particularly when their conditions fluctuate, and how they are often judged on the day rather than anyone really listening to what their condition is like. One of the things that that greater level of skill, experience and knowledge brings is the ability to take a step back and ask the right questions about things such as fluctuation.
Alex Cunningham
Indeed; that applies to this Bill as well. We are dealing with the most serious issue possible—the right of the authorities to deprive someone of their liberty—so we must get it right. We have seen failure time and again in the areas I mentioned. When people with inadequate knowledge carry out assessments of various things, they get it very badly wrong, and the client ends up winning their appeal. More than half of them, in some cases, win their appeals, but only after many weeks and even months, so they are often left without the support they need.
I wonder what happens in this sort of situation, when we are dealing with the deprivation of people’s liberty. We cannot allow those types of failure to be repeated in the system set up under the Bill, because the consequences are so far-reaching. It is taking somebody’s liberty away. It will not just be a decision to deprive people of their welfare benefits; it will actually take away their freedom.
I agree with my colleagues who have spoken in the debate that assessments should be undertaken by people who have the knowledge, skills and experience and hold the appropriate professional registration. If we do not put that into the Bill, the Bill will simply not be strong enough. It is far too important to be in the follow-up code of practice. We have heard a lot about the code of practice, but of course we have not seen anything that is in it. It is far more important than that. We must ensure that there is a sufficient level of scrutiny within the legislation.
I wonder what the Minister would tell Dr Haider Malik, a consultant psychiatrist who provided written evidence to the Committee. He said:
“In current Bill there is complete oversight of mental health assessor’s role. Though DoLS is considered complicated and bureaucratic piece of legislation but in my view Liberty Protection Safeguarding…would fail the stress test.”
The evidence we have received from a number of stakeholders is very clear. There is a clear demand out there, from people who know what they are talking about, for us to ensure that those carrying out the assessments are qualified to do so. Anything short of that is a betrayal not just of the individual, because it could lead to them wrongly losing their freedom, but of our duty to legislate to protect them.
Paula Sherriff
I will move on to amendment 31, which addresses who should be able to carry out medical assessments.
As hon. Members know, one of the three criteria for authorising the deprivation of liberty is that the cared-for person has a mental disorder. On the face of it, that is one of the most straightforward provisions in the Bill. However, the only provision for who should carry out the assessment is contained in paragraph 18(2), which states that the assessor must appear
“to the relevant person to have appropriate experience and knowledge.”
I am sure that I am not the only person present who is somewhat unclear about what constitutes the appropriate experience and knowledge.
Unlike other areas of the Bill, the assessment of a mental disorder is not wholly subjective; it is a medical assessment made under the Mental Health Act 1983. If someone wants to detain someone else for assessment under that Act, they need the recommendation of not one but two registered medical practitioners, yet under the Bill, it may be possible for a mental disorder to be diagnosed without the input of a medical practitioner.
Amendment 31 has been supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which is concerned about the potential impact of assessments made by people who are not registered medical practitioners. One of its concerns is that the Bill says that the person commissioning the assessment has to decide whether the person carrying out the assessment has the relevant skills and experience, which could lead to a significant watering down of the levels of protection if we do not clearly state who can carry out such assessments. Furthermore, it has raised the possibility of misdiagnosis where a different disorder presents as a mental disorder, which would lead to the person being wrongly deprived of their liberty under the Bill.
The amendment also brings the Bill into line with the principles laid out by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the diagnosis of a mental disorder. In Winterwerp v. the Netherlands in 1979, the European Court ruled that article 5 requires:
“Objective medical evidence of a true mental disorder of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement, which persists throughout the period of detention”.
Given that requirement for objective medical evidence, the Bill needs to guarantee that only a registered medical practitioner with appropriate training has the power to determine whether someone has a mental disorder. Anything else would risk creating legal issues, as people will challenge what constitutes objective medical evidence.
I hesitate to wake up Conservative Members by pushing a point about Europe, but the Minister will know that the Secretary of State has signed a statement on the front of the Bill to say that, in his view, its provisions are compatible with the convention rights. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the Government have considered that legal point and tell us with total confidence that the Bill meets the requirements for objective medical evidence without setting the requirement that a registered medical practitioner provide it? The requirement need not be excessively burdensome on the medical profession, as the Bill already makes provision for previous assessments to be used for certifying that somebody has a mental disorder.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has helpfully supplied some examples of where there is a clear requirement for a registered medical professional to carry out the medical assessment, which I hope the Committee will find helpful in clarifying why we have tabled amendment 31. The first case relates to an 80-year-old woman, who has been settled in a care home for a year. Suddenly, without any obvious cause, she becomes agitated and distressed and tries to leave the care home. It would not be unreasonable for a lay person to conclude that she is no longer happy with the arrangements that are in place and needs an LPS to be granted.
In fact, the reason for the woman’s agitation is that she has developed a urinary infection, which has caused her to develop delirium. Once that is diagnosed and treated, she regains capacity and no longer needs an LPS. Delirium is not only easily missed, but life threatening. By having the involvement of a registered medical professional, it is much more likely that delirium will be correctly diagnosed.
In a second example, a wealthy man in a nursing home has met a younger woman via the internet. She has offered to move him out of the home and look after him in exchange for payment. The nursing home and social services feel that an LPS should be used to keep him in the nursing home, despite his wanting to leave. Following a detailed examination of his mental state, there is no evidence to suggest that he has a mental disorder. That example shows that it is important for an experienced medical professional to conduct a full and thorough assessment, rather than assuming that someone has a mental disorder purely because they engage in activity that others might see as reckless or unwise.
The third and final example relates to a woman living in a care home. She has been becoming more confused over time, and it is now thought that an LPS is needed. However, increased confusion is secondary to a recently commenced combination of medication. Once that is identified and her medication regime is changed, her confusion settles. After that, she is happy to remain in the home. In that case, it was important to have a medical professional with experience of analysing the impact of medication to assess the case. That meant that the changes in her mental state could be correctly ascribed to a mix of medicines that is not working, rather than a mental disorder.
All those examples illustrate cases in which the medical assessment needed to be carried out by a registered medical professional. Indeed, without the input of medical professionals at that point, it is possible that people would be not only wrongly deprived of their liberty, but subjected to totally inappropriate treatment regimes.
So far, the Government have said only that the code of practice will set out the requirements for the assessor under the new LPS scheme. I hope that the Minister will guarantee to the Committee that the code of practice will match the requirements of amendment 31 for an assessment by a registered medical practitioner. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, a code of practice does not carry the full weight of law. If this provision will be contained in the code of practice anyway, I see no reason to resist our amendment, which would give it that weight in the Bill. The Minister in the Lords suggested that the assessor will be a physician, but there has been no further clarification of that. I make it clear that the amendment is not merely probing; it is an amendment that needs absolute clarity.
The requirement for the assessment to be carried out by a medical practitioner is a vital safeguard. It helps to align our laws with the established position of the European Court. As such, that requirement must be included in the Bill, not shoehorned into a code of practice that we have not yet seen and that is to be published later.
Amendment 33 focuses on the skills of the people carrying out the medical and capacity assessments. The amendment goes slightly further than the Bill, which focuses only on experience and knowledge. In a number of places, that might make a difference, but it does so most clearly in relation to people with communication difficulties. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists stated:
“A person with a communication need may be at risk of being labelled as ‘lacking mental capacity’ if people mistake their communication problems for a lack of capacity.”
That could lead to people being deprived of their liberty under the Act when, in reality, they have the capacity to consent or not to consent to the arrangements.
One example of how that can look in practice involves speech and language therapists. In one case, a speech and language therapist used an inclusive communication approach to support a young man who had had a traumatic brain injury to understand a complex ophthalmic surgical procedure. He was then able to demonstrate that he could understand and consider the pros and cons of surgery, enabling him to make his own decision. Without that input, he would likely have been deemed to be lacking capacity and the best interests process would have been implemented.
In short, amendment 33 is about ensuring that we do not assume that people lack the capacity to make decisions purely because they might struggle to make themselves understood. Our amendment would ensure that whoever carries out the assessments has the appropriate skills to communicate with the cared-for person. What those skills include might of course vary from person to person. For example, if someone is non-verbal, it might well be that an assessor who can use Makaton is needed to ensure that their capacity can be considered adequately.
Will the Minister confirm that for a small number of people who have been deprived of their liberty, the main reason given was a hearing impairment? I do not think that any of us in Committee would be happy if it turned out that the person who ruled on capacity in those cases did not have the skills needed to communicate with someone who cannot hear.
The Minister in the House of Lords made assurances that the code of practice would set out the skills expected of assessors. Will the Minister for Care expand on that assurance and guarantee to the Committee that she will address communication specifically? None the less, at the risk of repeating myself, a code of practice simply does not carry the same weight as a provision of the Bill. It is absolutely unimaginable that somebody should be able to make a decision on a cared-for person’s capacity if they are unable to communicate with them properly. Amendment 33 would simply ensure that they could communicate with them.
Caroline Dinenage
I start by welcoming the fact that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Dewsbury for the first time. It is a great pleasure to hear from her, not least because I can pronounce her constituency far better than Worsley and Eccles South.
I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments, which I will take in the order in which the hon. Member for Dewsbury presented them. Amendment 32 would place the consideration of fluctuating capacity in the Bill. I agree that the likelihood of capacity to fluctuate should be very carefully assessed under the Mental Capacity Act. Fluctuating capacity should be considered in the authorisation, in the length of the authorisation and in the frequency of reviews. I am very tempted by the amendment, but the problem is, then what? It puts the provision in the Bill, but it does not describe what happens then. To my mind, that opens a whole can of worms.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis said, fluctuating capacity is incredibly complex to diagnose. It is a fact-specific matter that deserves great in-depth and detailed guidance. As such, I do not think it can be considered satisfactorily in one line in the Bill.
Dr Williams
I think there is an acknowledgment that whether or not someone has fluctuating capacity needs to be assessed. What is wrong with putting that in the Bill and then dealing with the complexity and the nuance and the “then what?” in the code of practice?
Caroline Dinenage
As I say, I am tempted by what hon. Members have said, so I will take this point away and look at it, but we have to consider this matter very carefully. We have to consider whether there are appropriate protections already in the Bill. That point relates to what I spoke quite a lot about on Tuesday—we have to be really careful about the unintended consequences of putting too much in the Bill, because if we then leave something out, we may create the sort of legal loopholes that caused so many problems with the previous DoLS legislation.
Helen Whately
The Minister is discussing whether there is already the necessary content in the legislation. Is she referring to the Act that we are amending or the Bill that we are discussing? It might be helpful to clarify.
Caroline Dinenage
Both, really. For example, the Bill lays out how every authorisation has a programme of reviews—if there is a change in the circumstances meaning that authorisation conditions are no longer met, the authorisation is no longer valid, and a review is triggered by reasonable request or significant changes in a person’s circumstances—so it is well within the scope of the Bill to address people with fluctuating capacity and to make sure that there is the necessary capacity.
The other issue that I have to take into consideration is that in a case regarding a patient known as CDM, fluctuating capacity has been considered by the Court of Protection, and that is currently being appealed. We are awaiting that decision, which will give useful guidance on how care workers should assess those with fluctuating capacity. That is something we will want to reflect on.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury spoke about the Law Commission and asked why we have differed a little bit from what it recommended. It is simple. The Law Commission had anticipated an entirely separate scheme for fluctuating capacity, adding a hugely complex dimension to this whole piece of work. Under its recommendations, people with fluctuating capacity would be dealt with in a separate authorisation process not directly linked to the main scheme. That is why there is a bit of confusion there.
There will be an awful lot of detail on this matter in the code of practice, which we consider the most appropriate form of guidance, given the level of detail it will require—this is a very serious matter. That will continue the practice under the current deprivation of liberty safeguards system, where the code of practice addresses fluctuating capacity. As I say, the Bill talks about regular assessment, including a limit of a year in the first instance—that is the maximum. The assessments can be set at very short-frequency time periods in order to deal with somebody who might have fluctuating capacity. Statutory guidance will include cases where a person with fluctuating capacity meets or does not meet the authorisation condition of lacking capacity to consent to arrangements, and will cover whether the authorisation continues in force or ceases to have effect.
Amendments 31 and 33 seek to ensure that medical assessments are completed by a registered medical practitioner. I completely agree that the person who conducts the medical assessment must of course be suitably competent, but the Bill already states that a person carrying out a medical capacity assessment must have “appropriate experience and knowledge”. We expect capacity assessments to be completed by a registered professional such as a nurse, social worker or occupational therapist, and medical assessments must be completed by physicians, such as family GPs and other doctors. However, we have to take into consideration that objective medical evidence does not require a registered doctor in all cases. Case law confirms that it can also include psychologists, for example, as was confirmed by the Law Commission.
In addition, to show the complexity of the issue, registered medical practitioners can include doctors who do not currently have a licence to practise. I know the hon. Member for Stockton South will be aware of that, given his knowledge and profession, but we need to consider carefully the law of unintended consequences when thinking about putting that in the Bill. We could be opening up a whole unwanted can of worms. We need to consider carefully whether we allow that particular group to give medical evidence.
It should also be noted that case law on article 5 of the European convention on human rights already requires that a deprivation of liberty must be based on objective medical expertise. The focus is therefore on competence at every stage rather than on qualifications. We are making it clear that all appropriate medical professionals should be included, which includes the speech and language therapists in the case that the hon. Member for Dewsbury spoke about.
I hope I have provided confirmation that medical and capacity assessments will be completed by somebody with the appropriate experience and knowledge to do the job, and that they will have the competence required to make a reliable assessment. I hope that I have provided Members with the reassurance they need to not press the amendments.
Paula Sherriff
I am grateful the Minister has agreed to have another look at the requests we have made today, but, in summary, medical and capacity assessments are a fundamental part of the proposed LPS system. They play a crucial role in preventing people from being wrongly deprived of their liberty. I have given examples today of where it is particularly important that the medical assessment is carried out by a registered medical practitioner. The European Court of Human Rights has held that deprivation of liberty on the grounds of unsound mind is permissible only on the basis of objective medical evidence. We need a guarantee in the Bill that medical assessments will be carried out by registered medical practitioners, otherwise we cannot ensure the Bill is fully compliant with European law.
I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South, particularly for his valuable medical experience on this issue, and my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North and for Nottingham North.
The Law Commission wrote at length on the importance of considering fluctuating conditions. The amendment would ensure that an assessment has to be made of whether a person’s capacity will fluctuate. Without our amendment on fluctuating conditions, we might end up in a situation where anyone with fluctuating capacity is subject to different restrictions, depending on how a particular care setting treats them.
Finally, amendment 33 provides for capacity assessors to have the skills appropriate to carry out an assessment. That is especially important for people who have communication issues, as I outlined earlier. The Minister in the House of Lords said that skills will be covered in the code of practice, but we still have not seen the code. We need assurances in the Bill to ensure that people are not deprived of their liberty simply because an assessor could not understand them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 14, line 6, leave out “prescribed connection” and insert
“connection, of a kind prescribed by regulations,”.
This amendment is to make it clear that a regulation making power is being conferred by paragraph 18(3) of the new Schedule AA1.
Caroline Dinenage
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. A warm welcome to the Committee—albeit not quite as warm as it would have been had you been here on Tuesday.
These technical amendments build on important amendments tabled by the Government in the other place. They ensure that a person with a connection to a care home cannot conduct the assessments needed for an authorisation or the pre-authorisation review, and thereby eliminate any potential conflict of interest. It is vital that assessments and pre-authorisation reviews are completed independently. The amendments not only ensure there is no conflict of interest in the process but prevent the approval of over-restrictive arrangements that are in a care home’s interest but not in the best interests of the individual.
The amendments clarify that the definition of a person with a connection to a care home will be set out in regulations; the Bill therefore confers regulation-making powers. That may not have been sufficiently clear in previous drafting, so those connections will be laid out in regulations, which will allow us to provide the necessary detail and ensure that all care home staff and those connected to a care home are excluded from completing assessments and pre-authorisation reviews. Consideration was given to setting that out in the Bill, but we concluded that regulations would better serve our intention of ensuring that we exclude agency staff and others who do not work directly for the care home. I hope the Committee supports these clarifying amendments.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. The atmosphere is so much nicer than it was on Tuesday, when we were so horribly hot. You avoided being in a sauna for a few hours.
It is a pleasure to speak to such uncontroversial amendments. We will discuss conflicts of interest further, so I will not say too much now, but I wish to make one comment. The amendments make clear that assessments and reviews should not be carried out by people who have certain relationships with a care home, but I hope the Government take a broad view of the kinds of relationships that should be ruled out. The regulations must not provide that the only people with a prescribed relationship with a care home are its employees. I also hope the Government take an open and consultative approach to drawing up the regulations. Many stakeholders will have strongly held views about the kinds of relationships that should be prescribed, and the Government should ensure that they take all that expertise on board.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Amendment made: 6, in schedule 1, page 15, line 4, leave out “prescribed connection” and insert
“connection, of a kind prescribed by regulations,”.—(Caroline Dinenage.)
This amendment is to make it clear that a regulation making power is being conferred by paragraph 19(4) of the new Schedule AA1.
Barbara Keeley
I beg to move amendment 34, in schedule 1, page 15, line 34, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the person consulted under sub-paragraph (2) has parental responsibility for the cared-for person, the consultation shall seek to ascertain that person’s wishes and feelings in relation to the arrangements.”
This amendment introduces a requirement to consult parents about their child’s care arrangements.
The amendment follows on from amendment 30 on parental consent and amendment 38 on approved mental capacity professional reviews for 16 and 17-year-olds. It would provide an additional and equally important tool to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds, who will now be subject to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, are afforded the proper safeguards.
I have previously welcomed the inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds in the Bill, as it is important that they do not fall through the cracks in the system. Their inclusion provides consistency with the remainder of the Mental Capacity Act, which makes no distinction between 16 and 17-year-olds and people older than them, but the Bill does not go as far as was recommended by the Law Commission, which wanted the Government to carry out a full review of mental capacity law as it relates to children and young people. I hope the Government are still considering that recommendation. The current system leaves children under 16 in an uncertain legal position as there is no provision for them to be subject to mental capacity legislation, so I hope a review is forthcoming.
The amendment focuses on the consultation process that must be carried out before an authorisation is either granted or renewed. That is one of the most important processes that will be carried out under the liberty protection safeguards, as it will ensure that the cared-for person and others who are interested in their welfare have a say. Since we will not cover consultation in great detail in future, I will briefly outline why the process is of such importance in the context of the amendment.
In this area, the Bill goes considerably further than the existing deprivation of liberty safeguards system. It is welcome that we are moving on from a situation where consultation is optional to one where it is mandatory. That is a crucial part of understanding whether the arrangements are in a person’s best interests, particularly in cases where a person has communication issues—we explored that this morning. Those with an interest in a person’s welfare may be the best placed to comment on their wishes and feelings. That is a broad group, which is why the phrase “people with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare” is so vital. It covers family members, but goes further where it needs to. It could include anyone, from fellow members of a church congregation to a neighbour who keeps an eye out for the cared-for person. The consultations are not optional; the Bill contains provision that those people must be consulted. Unfortunately, how the results of the consultation should be integrated with other assessments is not mentioned. I suspect that, again, that will appear in the much-fêted code of practice when it is finally published.
I hope it will become clear that the results of the consultation should be given appropriate weight in considering whether arrangements are necessary and proportionate. In most cases, that will be sufficient, but the views of some of the groups to be consulted that are mentioned, and one crucial group that is not specifically mentioned, should be given greater weight. This amendment refers specifically to 16 and 17-year-olds, and there is a group with a specific legally grounded interest in their welfare: the individuals who have parental responsibility for the cared-for person. We want to ensure that people with parental responsibility have their different role recognised. Amendment 30 on parental objection was one way that could be achieved; amendment 34 is another.
In the Mental Capacity Act 2005 there are a number of provisions, as part of the best interest requirements, that would be integrated into the consultation process. I will quote from those briefly. Section 4(6) of the Act requires an assessment to be made on
“the person’s past and present wishes and feelings…the beliefs and values that would be likely to influence his decision if he had capacity, and…the other factors that he would be likely to consider if he were able to do so.”
Those are not necessarily things that would be obvious to just anyone interested in a cared-for person’s welfare. In particular, beliefs and values are often deeply personal. To ensure those are properly captured, we must ensure that those people who know the cared-for person best are not only consulted but given a meaningful say on the arrangements.
When the Bill was published, the requirement was that anybody with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare must be consulted, but as I said, it went no further than that and did not specify what the consultation would seek to do. Because the Bill extends to 16 and 17-year-olds, that provision is now clearly deficient. Parents have a greater stake in their children’s welfare than others, but more than that, parents can give a greater insight into the beliefs, values, wishes and feelings of their children than those who have other relationships. Legislation such as the Children Act 1983 recognises that fact and provides parents with a far greater say over what their children do than is normally given to other family members. In particular, existing legislation creates a presumption that a person with parental responsibility has a significant say over where a child or young person lives. We are talking about an age group that requires parental permission to get married or even to get a tattoo. It is clear that the parents of 16 and 17-year-olds have rights and responsibilities that vastly outstrip those found in other relationships. The amendment would reflect that importance.
This is a distinct issue from the one raised in amendment 30 on the role of parental consent in authorising arrangements. We have touched on that before. Inevitably, there will be cases where parents do not wish to withhold their consent completely, but none the less have reservations or suggestions that should be taken on board, particularly in the case of 16 or 17-year-olds, who may sometimes display challenging behaviour. In those circumstances, parents may not wish to veto arrangements completely, as that may leave them without the support they need.
We are taking about situations where parents may find themselves pitted against professionals. We all know the feeling of being told by a doctor that something is in our best interests; mostly, we do not challenge those assertions, but that does not mean that professionals are infallible. In cases of such importance, where we are dealing with people’s fundamental human rights, it is important that we test such presumptions.
I have spoken previously about the case of Bethany, who was held inappropriately in St Andrews independent hospital. Despite the difficulties, in some ways Bethany is fortunate that her father is able to stand up for her and argue against what professionals are telling him is in her best interests. Steven Neary, whose case I also mentioned, was also fortunate that his father worked tirelessly to have him moved from the unit in which he was being held so inappropriately.
There is another deeply tragic case, illustrating the difficulties parents have in challenging professionals’ determination of what is in a patient’s best interest—that of Oliver McGowan. I know the Minister met Oliver’s mother Paula following her successful petition for a debate on the treatment of people with autism and learning disability. Oliver was autistic, but had a full life expectancy. He had previously had adverse reactions to the type of antipsychotic medication that eventually killed him, yet despite his parents’ raising concerns, the clinician treating him continued to administer that medication and Oliver died. That tragic case highlights what parents can be up against.
The unfortunate reality is that parents such as Bethany’s dad and Steven Neary’s father, who have been able to challenge decisions affecting their children, are notable for being the exception, not the rule. There are any number of parents of children in this situation who have been told so often by professionals that the arrangements are in their children’s best interests that they find it hard to persist in challenging that over months and years. It is particularly hard for parents who do not have the resources, time or confidence to draw public attention to their case. Other parents need to be proactively supported to comment on the proposed arrangements.
To summarise my argument, some parents will not feel confident enough to try to overrule professionals who are telling them that certain arrangements are in their child’s best interest. That does not mean we should not pay particular attention to their views on whether the arrangements are proportionate or on whether there may be less restrictive options available.
One point that must be considered is where parents would prefer that their child continue to live in the family home. I spoke earlier about the importance of never depriving somebody of their liberty unless that is the only option, but the unfortunate reality is that local authorities face severe funding pressures, and professionals sometimes tend toward ensuring physical safety at the cost of all else. That can lead to parents who may want to keep their child at home being told that the only way to keep the child safe is to move them elsewhere. Giving their views particular weight at the consultation stages is one way to ensure that arrangements are not authorised when a less restrictive option is desirable.
The amendment provides a dedicated outlet for parents to give their views. It reflects the greater role that parents and those with parental responsibilities play in caring for their children. The purpose is to strengthen the role that parents can play throughout the process of authorising a deprivation of liberty. Our amendment 30 would have required them to give their approval to any arrangements, but there is a final reason to specify that those with parental responsibility must have their views considered. I discussed at length earlier some cases where care homes restricted contact between a cared-for person and their family. That can be done for no reason, with only spurious grounds given. The cases I raised earlier all related to an older cared-for person, but the same provisions are sometimes put in place for younger people, with parents restricted from seeing their own children. However widespread that practice may be, it is another instance where a single case of a parent being denied a say on their child’s care for no good reason would be too many. I hope amendment 34 makes it clear that the responsible body, or whoever else is organising the consultation, cannot simply sideline those with parental responsibilities. The amendment is about ensuring that the parental voice is heard throughout the process and can shape the form that arrangements may take.
We are talking about a cohort of young people with immensely complex needs. They need the people who know them best to be not only informed, but actively consulted on the arrangements they will be subject to. By doing that, we can ensure that when 16 or 17-year-olds are subject to the liberty protection safeguards, it is done in their best interests.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. This morning we talked a lot about the role of parents in these circumstances, so I will not rehearse all those arguments again. We tested the view of the Committee on the principle that there would be a parental override, and the decision of the Committee was that that was not appropriate. Amendment 34 is perhaps a step back from that, but would still give parents a very important place and role in exceptionally difficult decisions. I hope it might find a little more traction with colleagues.
Caroline Dinenage
I thank the Opposition for raising this issue. As we have heard, the amendment would require that parents’ wishes and feelings about the proposed arrangements for their 16 and 17-year-old child are ascertained. That would be in addition to the main purpose of the consultation, which is to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the cared-for person.
I understand that hon. Members are concerned to ensure that parents’ voices are heard—so, of course, are the Government. Parents have a vital role in caring for their children, especially when they lack mental capacity. We would fully expect the responsible body to consult parents about their views of the arrangement, where appropriate, while ascertaining the wishes and feelings of the person. We therefore believe the amendment to be unnecessary, because parents involved in the care of their child will already be included in the consultation process, where appropriate. I refer Members to my earlier comments on the safeguarding issues that must also be taken into consideration.
The other thing to be taken into consideration, which I mentioned earlier, is the Birmingham case which is being considered by the Supreme Court. That will bring further clarity to parental responsibility for young people lacking mental capacity.
Barbara Keeley
I hope that the Minister was listening to the cases that I cited—I know that she has been involved in and heard of those cases, and sometimes met the individuals. Parents, however, were not consulted in desperately difficult and at times tragic circumstances. She knows that Paula McGowan and Oliver’s father were not consulted; in fact, they were ignored. On a number of occasions, I have talked about the case of Y, whose parents were ignored—the social worker just ignored them—to the real damage of that young person, who was held for two years. The Minister says somewhat glibly, if she will excuse me saying that, that parents will be consulted, but they are too often ignored. It seems to me that the working practice of many professionals in this field is to ignore the parents. I do not think that the amendment is unnecessary, because it creates a situation in which we draw attention to the importance of the input that parents can make. I have certainly seen no evidence that that is routinely used at the moment.
Caroline Dinenage
I very much take on board the hon. Lady’s concerns, and she knows that I have enormous respect for her work in this field. As she said, I have met with a number of parents involved in these tragic cases—she mentioned Paula McGowan and her son, Oliver. It was not just Oliver’s parents whose wishes and feelings were ignored; it was Oliver’s. In the initial period he said that he could not have the medication that they were giving him, and they still gave it to him anyway. Her point is incredibly valid, but it needs a lot more than this to achieve what we are aiming for. That is why we are bringing forward the consultation on the appropriate training for people who work in health and care settings, on how to be able to communicate with, understand and properly look after people with autism and learning disabilities.
Barbara Keeley
I respect that the Minister has taken on board Paula McGowan’s campaign, but how much more powerful would the training of medical professionals and others involved with the care and treatment of people like Oliver be, when it is started, if it could be said in the consultation that they have to listen to the views of the parents? That would be a change, because clearly they are not doing so at the moment.
Caroline Dinenage
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. We are making it clear that parental voices must be heard, but we have to be careful about putting anything in the Bill that could create unintended consequences. We have spoken about it before and those safeguarding issues have to be taken very seriously. To our cost, we have learned from previous Bills that a loophole in the law can take the whole policy off in a way that we had not entirely expected. We do not want to recreate that. I hope that with that reassurance hon. Members feel they are able to withdraw the amendment.
Barbara Keeley
No, I am afraid I do not. Amendment 34 requires the views of parents to be given particular weight in the consultation process, when the cared-for person is 16 or 17 years old. That is the third of our amendments designed to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds have proper safeguards. It is necessary, because of the greater safeguards that this age group currently receives under the Mental Health Act. I think there will be a shift in which piece of legislation is used in regard of 16 and 17-year-olds. We cannot have a situation where the safeguards are less under the mental capacity legislation than they are under the Mental Health Act or a court order. We will press this to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Barbara Keeley
I beg to move amendment 35, in schedule 1, page 15, line 41, after “is” insert “employed by an organisation”.
This amendment would prohibit the pre-authorisation review from being carried out by any person employed by an organisation involved in the day-to-day care of the cared-for person, or involved in providing any treatment to the cared-for person.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 36, in schedule 1, page 16, line 2, at end insert “or independent hospital.”
This amendment would ensure that the person conducting the pre-authorisation review does not have a prescribed connection with an independent hospital.
Barbara Keeley
Paragraph 21 of the new schedule AA1 makes provision for certain people to be excluded from carrying out the pre-authorisation review of a liberty protection safeguards application. In this section, the Bill specifically prohibits pre-authorisation reviews from being carried out by anybody involved in the day to day care of the cared-for person or in providing any treatment to the cared-for person. We are glad to see the safeguard is in the Bill. It would not be appropriate for a paid member of care staff to be the independent person safeguarding a person’s liberty as well.
We have previously discussed the issue of conflict of interest and we have tabled amendments to eliminate this, but the safeguards are still fallible. We have tabled amendments 35 and 36 because we believe the Bill requires further clarification to ensure that the independent reviewer is not in any way connected with the organisation conducting the pre-authorisation review. We are concerned that it is not only people directly involved in providing care or treatment to a person who may be incapable of providing that truly independent check we want to see. There are other individuals, for instance, within the same care home provider, who would still lawfully be allowed to conduct a pre-authorisation but who could not be described as truly independent. That would still represent a wholly unacceptable conflict of interest. It would be a shame if, having accepted the principle that there must be no conflict of interest in this Bill in relation to care home managers, the Government allowed it to creep in via the back door, in this way.
Amendment 36 is designed to address further potential conflicts of interest in cases where the cared-for person is held in an independent hospital. I raised the real concerns from across the sector, both on Second Reading and earlier in Committee, about the potential relationship between independent hospitals and the approved mental capacity professionals who will review cases. Our concern is that there is nothing to prevent an independent hospital from entering into a cosy relationship with an approved mental capacity professional. The AMCP could then review the cases going through that independent hospital, effectively removing a vital safeguard against the improper deprivation of liberty.
The Government have repeatedly said that that would not be permissible under their proposals. Our amendment attempts to clarify the position, so that stakeholders and others can be reassured that the Bill will have its intended effect. The Minister’s agreeing to the amendment would be welcome, given the speed at which the Bill is progressing and the concerns raised by stakeholders about not only the contents of the Bill but the perfunctory way that stakeholders have been consulted.
The Bill was amended in the Lords to ensure that nobody with a prescribed connection to a care home can carry out the pre-authorisation review. The Minister said that the Government will bring forward regulations in due course that will set out the different kind of relationships to a care home that will be prescribed. I have already made some comments on that, which I will reiterate briefly. It is important that the Government take a broad view of the relationships that should be prescribed and, indeed, proscribed. These few lines are in fact some of the most important safeguards in the Bill.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time this afternoon, Mr Pritchard. Opposition Members have expressed very real concerns about the additional responsibilities placed on care homes by the Bill and have questioned how that can work, particularly in situations in which there might not be a care home manager or if the care home management might be considered inadequate or not fit for purpose.
The Bill would allow care homes to choose any staff who they consider appropriate to undertake assessments. Who will make those decisions? If there is no manager, who else will take the decision? If the manager is deemed incompetent and does not know how to run a care home, how on earth can they make a decision on an assessor? I cannot understand that.
One best interests assessor expressed worry that care homes will want to undertake assessments as cheaply as possible, so many independent reviewers will only be able to review documents, rather than actually meeting the person in care and/or their family. I cannot understand how the Minister or Government Members think that care homes and hospitals should not consult with a range of independent reviewers, rather than potentially just one.
As hospitals will be able to employ their own independent reviewers, is the title of “independent reviewer” misleading and potentially dangerous? They will have a vested interest in the future care of a patient, and care providers, with their well-documented financial pressures, will have an interest in retaining the people that they care for. Surely the Minister agrees that assessors should be completely independent from care homes or hospitals and not just independent in name only. Does she agree that we have to do everything we can to remove this conflict of interest?
Another best interests assessor told me at a December meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on social work, which I chair, that although most care homes practise with integrity, the new proposal leaves the system open to abuse. I know that it would only be the odd one here and there, but that is the odd one too many. Under strict time and financial pressures, care home managers are likely to keep recommissioning the same assessors who are sympathetic to the desires of the care provider. The Minister must agree that that is unsatisfactory and could effectively lead to a deprivation of liberty for the people in the care home.
If there is even a tiny danger of that because of the way the Bill is constructed, the Minister could be culpable for a person losing their freedom simply because, in some cases, “independent” turned out to be anything but. I know she will reflect on that, and I hope she will accept the amendment, but if she chooses not to, she must spell out exactly how she will ensure that some vulnerable person is not caught in a trap of her Government’s making.
Alex Norris
This debate harks back to what we talked about on Tuesday—the perverse incentives for those providing care to let individuals remain on care packages for their own commercial interests, whether consciously or subconsciously. There is definitely a conflict of interest there. We have not taken previous amendments on that, but at some point I believe a line will have to be drawn stating, “These are the very clear in law protections that we are putting down to ensure there is no conflict of interest.”
It is entirely possible that the code of practice will refer to that and at the first stroke make it clear that it would be highly inappropriate for the assessments or reviews to be done by individuals who have a close connection or employment relationship with the provider themselves. That might be so, but we do not have that code of practice yet, and in any case, it is probably something that would be better in the Bill than in guidance, notwithstanding what the Minister has said previously about the standing of the code of practice.
We know that care facilities have narrow financial constraints. Their finances are tight and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North says, there is a pressure to provide as cheaply as possible. That is a clear and present danger. To avoid that concern and send a clear signal about those who conduct these types of reviews, now is a good time to put it in the Bill.
Caroline Dinenage
I am grateful to the hon. Members who have raised this important issue. I will address each amendment in turn.
On amendment 35, I agree that the independence of the pre-authorisation reviewer is of the utmost importance for ensuring that there is no conflict of interest in the pre-authorisation review. The Bill provides for separation between those who will authorise arrangements and those who will carry them out. The Bill is clear that anyone involved in a person’s day-to-day care or treatment or with a prescribed connection to a care home cannot complete a pre-authorisation review. That was an amendment made to the Bill after discussion in the other place.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
Even though somebody might not have a prescribed relationship, informal relationships can develop, as my hon. Friends said. Our concern is that the existence of those informal relationships—they have been described as “cosy”—may well not be precluded by the protections afforded in the Bill.
Caroline Dinenage
That is what we must guard against. It cannot be done in the Bill, because coverage has to be extensive; that is exactly where the regulations that run alongside the Bill come into their own. They will set out how, if someone is working for a care home in a different location but run by the same provider, they will be excluded. They will also take a broader view, encompassing things such as agency staff, volunteers and other areas where people may have very reasonable concerns, as well as, of course, everybody who is employed in the care home.
Another point I want to stress is that the amendment would put hospital trusts, clinical commissioning groups and local health boards in a position where they are unable to arrange for someone in their organisation who is separate from delivering care and treatment to complete the pre-authorisation review. They would instead have to organise someone external, which to me seems a wildly unnecessary and bureaucratic exercise. We trust our NHS staff with our lives every single day. I am sure that is an unintended consequence and that Opposition Members are not saying that we cannot trust our NHS staff to complete those reviews. That is when I talk about unintended consequences of amendments to Bills.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
This is a genuine question: what will the arrangement be for inspecting the work of the people who carry out the reviews? The Minister says that we trust our NHS staff, but we have a whole series of inspection and review processes to ensure that decision makers are complying with the law as intended. I think I asked a similar question the other day about the Care Quality Commission in relation to homes, which she said that she would look at. Will there be some similar oversight or random review process of the work that these people do? That would be one way—not a guaranteed way—of picking up whether there was an unsuitable relationship. At the moment, part of the fear is that we could end up in a situation where these people are set free to do this work, but without any guaranteed oversight of how they carry it out.
Caroline Dinenage
I laughed when the hon. Gentleman said, “This is a genuine question,” as if all the others he has asked have not been. I am sure that is not what he intended to suggest.
Steve McCabe
If the Minister will forgive me, it is just that she looks as if she does not believe me sometimes.
Caroline Dinenage
I think that might just be my natural resting face. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it depends who we are looking at. If the pre-authorisation review is being conducted by a local authority for a care home, the oversight of the senior members of the local authority would apply, as well as the Care Quality Commission, which deals with the quality of care homes. If it is something like a hospital, people will monitor other people’s work as happens already within hospitals, CCGs and health boards.
The Bill says that somebody who is involved in the direct care of a particular person cannot mark the homework of another person. In something as big and broad as a local health board, a CCG or a hospital trust, which can be enormous, exclusively saying that there could not be two people, who have never met each other before, looking at each other’s work seems to me a huge leap.
Amendment 36 is designed to prevent anyone with a prescribed connection to an independent hospital from conducting pre-authorisation reviews. I am sure that we can all agree that the pre-authorisation review is critical to the effective operation of the liberty protection safeguards in providing independent reviews of proposed arrangements that may deprive people of their liberty. We are talking about the most precious and vital of our human rights. The reviews have to be conducted by someone independent, who is not involved in the day-to-day provision of care or treatment of the cared-for person. That provides the necessary degree of separation to ensure that the model is compliant with the European convention rights.
By requiring authorisations in independent hospitals to be considered by an AMCP, regardless of whether the individual objects, we add a further level of security and build on other safeguards within the model. The AMCP will meet with the person, complete any relevant consultation and review assessments to decide whether the authorisation conditions are met. They can effectively veto proposed arrangements, if they feel that the proper conditions are not met. AMCPs will be professionals, such as experienced social workers, learning disability nurses and psychologists. Their practice will be regulated by and they will be accountable to their professional bodies—in answer to what the hon. Gentleman said earlier.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister just used the expression—I have lost my train of thought. I beg your pardon, Mr Pritchard.
Caroline Dinenage
I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South.
Barbara Keeley
I can see the Minister’s drift, but I do not understand how the Bill deals with a person who has a prescribed connection with a care home, but not a prescribed connection to an independent hospital. If it is important to have that in the Bill for a care home, why is it not important to have that in the Bill for an independent hospital?
Caroline Dinenage
It is in there—it is in both. In addition we have the AMCPs. As I said when discussed amendment 19, I fully understand hon. Members’ concerns around independent hospitals. I know the hon. Lady shares my concerns, and this matter has been raised by Members across the House. I said to her, in relation to amendment 19, that I wanted to go away and consider it further.
Alex Cunningham
I did not realise I was going to have to declare an interest in the Bill, in view of my lapse a few minutes ago. My question is about the reference the Minister made to the AMCP always meeting the person. Does the AMCP meet the person in every circumstance? We tabled amendments because we want everybody to have access to that sort of professional person—not just for them to see a report, but to actually see the person.
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, by requiring authorisation in independent hospitals to be considered by an AMCP, we add that extra level of scrutiny and build those safeguards into the model.
Given that I have committed to look at independent hospitals again, as I said in relation to amendment 19, I hope that the hon. Lady is willing to withdraw the amendment.
Barbara Keeley
I tried to ask the Minister another question. I do not want her just to go away and think about it. Is she prepared to look at adding the words “independent hospital”? Amendment 36 is a fairly simple addition of a few words. Is that what she is considering?
Caroline Dinenage
At this stage, I am prepared to say that I fully take on board and share the concern felt by the hon. Lady and others about ensuring that independent hospitals are not only seen to be above board, but are above board in every way that we can manage. That is why I have committed to looking again at everything that we have said so far to see if there is anything further we can do.
Barbara Keeley
I thank the Minister for saying that. She will need to go further and say that she is prepared to amend it on Report. Otherwise we will have to press our amendment to a vote. It is very important. I do not really understand the difference.
Ministers have accepted in the Lords that they want to prevent this important independent review from being conducted by a person with a prescribed connection to a care home. Responsible bodies include independent hospitals. I do not understand. If the Minister is prepared to go away and table a Government amendment we will not press this amendment to a vote. Otherwise, we will.
Caroline Dinenage
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s tenacity and dedication to this matter. I am afraid that, at the moment, all I can I say is that I am committed to looking at it again.
Barbara Keeley
That was helpful to know, because for us it is unacceptable for an independent reviewer to be employed by the same organisation that delivers care and support. That is unacceptable in a care home and in an independent hospital. The Bill is drafted too narrowly and precludes only individuals who are personally involved in the delivery of care. We certainly need to vote on the amendment. It seems to me to defy logic to have such a provision for care homes, but not to be every bit as cautious about independent hospitals.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Barbara Keeley
I beg to move amendment 42, in schedule 1, page 16, line 38, leave out
“if it appears to the Approved Mental Capacity Professional to be appropriate and practicable to do so”.
This amendment varies the role of the AMCP so that they must meet with the cared-for person in making their determination.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 43, in schedule 1, page 20, line 34, leave out
“if it appears to the Approved Mental Capacity Professional to be appropriate and practicable to do so”.
This amendment varies the role of the AMCP so that they must meet with the cared-for person in making their determination.
Barbara Keeley
Much of our conversation on the Bill has so far focused on the role of approved mental capacity professionals, when they should be appointed and who they should be. We have given this topic so much time because AMCPs are a fundamental safeguard built into the proposed LPS system. This independent review process will prevent the deprivation of liberty from being applied for and approved within one system.
We tabled several amendments designed to strengthen the provisions of this safeguard and prevent anybody from being wrongly deprived of their liberty. I am sorry that the Government have not accepted our amendments, which would have provided for more people to have access to an approved mental capacity review. These reviews would have ensured that it is not only people who actively object to arrangements or are in independent hospitals who have access to the safeguard that an AMCP review would provide.
None the less, we are determined to continue to improve the Bill, so that those people who do not have access to an AMCP review are treated properly. Amendments 42 and 43 provide for AMCPs to meet the cared-for person in all cases that they review. We just had a little exchange about this, and the Minister seemed to say that there would always be meetings. I hope she meant that.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On requiring the AMCP to meet the cared-for person before making their determination, the wording—
“appropriate and practicable to do so”—
is just not correct. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a duty of care to each and every individual? Surely each and every life is as important as the next. We must do our level best in all circumstances, not only when it is appropriate and practicable to do so.
Barbara Keeley
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend makes such a good point.
The Minister in the Lords, Baroness Stedman-Scott, said:
“We are clear that our intention is for approved mental capacity professionals to meet with the cared-for persons in almost all cases.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 371-72.]
That qualification—“almost all cases”—creeps in again. Our proposal would go a little further and require AMCPs to meet the cared-for person in every case that they review. This is a crucial part of reviewing an application. It cannot be right that the role of the independent reviewer should be limited to simply reading a set of papers and certifying that what is contained within them meets the requirements to authorise a deprivation of liberty. That would be no safeguard at all.
I have mentioned the case of Y v. Barking and Dagenham, which saw a young man held in an inappropriate care setting for more than two years. One major failing of the local authority and the independent social worker in that case was to simply accept the assertions made by care home staff, which led to nobody challenging the changes in Y’s condition, denying him the safeguards he so badly needed.
There are, so far as I can see, only two objections to requiring the AMCP to meet the cared-for person. The first is that it might be an excessive burden on the cared-for person. My response to that is simple: we are not asking for the AMCP to carry out a protracted, in-depth cross-examination of any cared-for person. It need not take hours or involve directly checking every minute detail of the authorisation record with the cared-for person, which would be burdensome in itself. We would not want to implement a system that requires somebody to go through a lengthy experience like that. However, that is not the same as not wanting the AMCP to meet the cared-for person, which could be for only a few minutes.
Steve McCabe
Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that these words have actually been included in the Bill? We have heard quite a bit from the Minister about the things she has not wanted to add to the Bill because she has not wanted to send the wrong signal or be too rigid in her approach. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Minister’s argument is that there could be genuine circumstances where it is not necessary to meet the person and the phrase would apply, that would be a matter of professional judgment that could be spelled out in the code of practice? By putting it in the Bill, the Minister succeeds in giving a clear signal that she expects there to be lots of circumstances where the person will not be seen.
Barbara Keeley
That is really worrying.
As I was saying, the meeting could be for just a few minutes to confirm that the cared-for person appears to present with the behaviours that are described in the application for deprivation of liberty. A meeting, no matter how short, could confirm or deny what is written in that application—whether a person is visibly happy or unhappy with arrangements and whether the arrangements appear to be proportionate.
To give a hypothetical example, physical restraint is not unheard of in cases under the deprivation of liberty safeguards—we know of many cases where restraint is being used. It might not be unreasonable to look at a level of physical restraint on paper and feel that it is needed to prevent harm to others, but seeing that person in the flesh may make it clear that the subject of the application is underfed and would not present a significant physical threat. Cases such as that would perhaps be rare, and I do not want to suggest that care providers would seek to over-restrain people as a matter of course, but the Minister and I, and many hon. Members, understand that it does happen. In such a case, the meeting with the cared-for person would tell the AMCP whether the arrangements were overly restrictive.
A second objection might be that meeting a cared-for person would involve extra cost. As it stands, the responsible body decides whether an AMCP should be brought in to review a case, so responsible bodies, including local authorities, must be properly resourced to bring AMCPs in on all cases where they are needed. We will touch on resources later in the debate. The reason that the meeting is important is simple: it may be that the cared-for person is not completely as they are described on paper or by other people that the AMCP meets in the process of their review.
I return to the case of X, whom I discussed previously, to illustrate why that is so important. For hon. Members who cannot remember that far back in our discussion—we have had several case studies—X was a 99-year-old woman residing in a nursing home. Daily, if not hourly, she was objecting to where she was. She wandered up and down the care home objecting to the arrangements that had been put in place. Of course, nobody in the care home had bothered to identify that X was objecting to the arrangements and that, as such, she would require a deprivation of liberty safeguards application to be made.
The Government’s refusal to accept some of our earlier amendments on approved mental capacity professionals means that X would not have received an AMCP review, given that nobody had identified an objection. If an AMCP had been appointed, however, it would have been critical that they met X, because anything else would have led them to simply accept the word of the nursing home, which clearly felt that X was content with the arrangements, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Meeting the cared-for person would allow the AMCP to stress-test the other elements of the application that they are reviewing. It would provide them with primary evidence, against which they can hold everything else they are given. I hope that the Minister agrees that that is important—indeed, that is undoubtedly why the Bill contains provision for approved mental capacity professionals to meet most of the cared-for people whose cases they are reviewing. Our amendment would simply extend that slightly to ensure that nobody falls between the cracks.
As we have discussed, the AMCP will not be involved in the majority of pre-authorisation reviews. They will be involved only in higher-risk cases where extra safeguards are needed. Given that the AMCP is being brought into the process because the cared-for person is at risk of being inappropriately deprived of their liberty, it seems perverse not to require that they at least meet the cared-for person.
The Bill provides for the approved mental capacity professional to
“meet with the cared-for person, if it appears”
to them
“to be appropriate and practicable to do so”.
Dr Williams
On that word “appears”, the only information that the AMCP will have to judge that on is information provided by other people. If they do not get the chance to make any kind of independent assessment themselves, there is the risk that other people’s judgment will influence their judgment.
Barbara Keeley
I agree, and it is words like those that we have a problem with. The Government have said that there will be guidance in the code of practice that will address what that means and what should be done in cases where it is neither “appropriate” nor “practicable”. The Opposition cannot yet see the code of practice and, therefore, we simply cannot accept assurances about its contents. The only way that we can guarantee that the Bill will work as intended is to put provisions in the Bill.
I made a point on Tuesday about the code of practice that I will repeat now, because it is an important one. 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 does not exist if the obligation in law is not clearly set out. That is what we want to address. Where a case requires review by an AMCP, that professional should be required to carry out their review in the fullest manner possible, and that must mean that they meet the cared-for person.
If the Government want to set out the limited set of circumstances where they do not feel that that should be the case, they should do so in the Bill, as then we can give their proposals the scrutiny that they are due. This is not an issue that should be relegated to a code of practice. If the circumstances in which a meeting is not required are too broad, there is a risk that people will be inappropriately deprived of their liberty, despite having had a review from an approved mental capacity professional. That would be unacceptable. We cannot allow decisions of such importance to be made in a code of practice that we cannot see. As such, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, and ensure that all the high-risk cases to which we are referring receive the full review that they need, including a meeting with the AMCP.
Alex Cunningham
I know that the Minister is well intentioned with this Bill, but it remains the case that the cared-for person is not always at the heart of it. That is a major worry, not just for us, but for people across our society. The issue has been brought to me by the Law Commission, by the Alzheimer’s Society, by experts who work for pro-liberty groups and by constituents who have taken the time to write to me on this point specifically.
It is baffling to me that the approved mental capacity professional is not required in the Bill to meet the cared-for person. Yet they are the professional who will decide the future of that person—whether or not they lose their liberty. None of us would want that for one of our relatives, would we? We simply would not want that to happen.
It may well be that the person in care does not have the capacity for a meaningful conversation to express their wishes and beliefs, but the assessor does not know that unless they meet them. It is essential. If the person in care does have some capacity, which I suspect would be identified by the assessor, surely their views, however communicated, ought to be taken into consideration—and, who knows, we might avoid the deprivation of liberty for that person.
I have already raised the importance of the role of speech and language therapists. I think the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent mentioned them this morning, and I know the Minister accepts the role that they have to play. They may well help identify the wishes of the cared-for person simply by enabling them to communicate, and surely there should be a separate assessment of the person’s views. If they are opposed to the accommodation or the care plan, an independent advocate should act in that person’s best interest.
Evidence submitted by Rethink Mental Illness raises the important point that nobody should have an advocate forced upon them, especially if they do not want one. However, advocates should still be appointed, even if they are then removed. That would ensure that the opinions of both the advocate and the person in care are taken into consideration, and that a judgment is made by a professional on the need for representation. We will debate advocacy later on in this Committee and I will speak to it in more detail then.
Ultimately, the amendment is about ensuring that the approved mental capacity professional has met with all the appropriate parties, including the person in care themselves, so that they can make the most informed decision possible. Not only does mandating the AMCP to meet the cared-for person before making the decision ensure liberty and respect is given to the person in care; it makes the professional’s job considerably easier, as diagnosis is more effective when they have met the person. As was raised in the evidence-gathering, in some cases simply meeting the cared-for person can make it obvious whether the person has capacity. As I said earlier, I suggest that no one but a professional is fully equipped to make that judgment.
Kay Matthews, from the deprivation of liberty safeguards team in the Borough of Poole local authority, wrote to the Committee and said that she would like to see the
“Wishes of the person—past and present”—
I emphasise “past and present”—taken into consideration in the Bill. She went on to say:
“I would like the person’s wishes—what they want, what they would have wanted—to be central to the assessment. I would like it stipulated that people making decisions on behalf of the person ought to support the person who lacks capacity to make the decisions they would have made if they still had capacity; that the person’s wishes are to be followed unless there is evidence that there is or could be seriously dangerous or significantly distressing consequences for the person.”
Ms Matthews says that that is vital because,
“in practice, some staff and relatives see a lack of capacity as a green light to over-ride the wishes of the person to meet their own needs (which are usually to feel less personally or professionally anxious about the person).”
She says that in her 10 years of experience she has seen it happen “again and again”. It is not only ineffective, but potentially dangerous that the Bill would allow the AMCP to basically come up with a verdict by just reading the in-care person’s file or talking to everyone else apart from the person themselves. I understand that because of tight budgets and cuts, care homes need to save money and time, but that comes at the cost of the in-care person.
While I am on the subject of costs in care homes, can the Minister tell me what assessment she has made of the potential costs that will fall on care homes from their extended role in the process? Has she had any data from the industry on that and, assuming she has, will she publish that assessment and data so that the Committee can understand the additional financial burden she is placing on the sector? Can she also advise us of who will be responsible for those costs? Will it be the hard-pressed care home that has to absorb them? Will there be a charge on the individual if they happen to meet their own care costs? If they do not, will that pass to the local authority, the health board or the clinical commissioning group? Who will pick up those costs? If the Minister does not have the data, will she commit to getting some before Report stage?
Returning to the amendment, do the Government want to be seen to be ignoring the voices of people in care? Most of all, does the Minister want to see people in care deprived of their liberty for the sake of what I see as one essential step in the process? The Mental Capacity Act should be an Act that is designed to support, listen to and respect the opinions of those being cared for. It should not make it easy for other people to quash or ignore the decisions of that individual.
Alex Norris
I have specific trouble with the word “practicable”. From my time in local government—I know things have not got better in the 18 months since then—I would argue strongly that the current assessment workload is not practicable for the individual. Earlier in our consideration of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak compared social work case loads when he was active in the profession with what they might be today. Putting in legislation how practicable it is for an individual to go and do an assessment creates the chance of a loophole that does something that we do not intend the Bill to do.
It is striking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, that the Minister has at all turns been careful about what has been put in the Bill so as not to create future loopholes. We know that traditionally, this area has been tested very heavily in case law and it will be tested again in court. She has been very careful not to put those words in there, but this one is problematic. We know that in a time of rising demand and diminished resources, there will be pressures. To put something in that suggests that if it is just too difficult for a social worker to go and do an assessment, that assessment will not take place, is dangerous. I do not think that is what we are trying to do. I believe that it will lead to a serious problem.
The market for providing very high-need care is not very developed. We are talking about very small numbers of people, so there are not masses and masses of providers. When it comes to all of us being older, there are facilities in all constituencies and communities for older people to have residential care, because it is a high-demand area. The very specific, individualised care packages that involve things such as depriving liberty are not found in every community. Often, we hear horror stories in children’s mental health of people being sent a long way away to find the right facility. Are we then saying that a reassessment might not be practical, because the AMCP is in Nottingham and the care placement is a long way out on the east coast in Lincolnshire? That might not be considered by an individual to be a “practicable” thing to do, so I have a real problem with that word.
If the Government are saying that there are circumstances—my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South mentioned the exchange in the other place—where they are relaxed about an AMCP not seeing an individual face-to-face, I think that is a bad idea, for the reasons detailed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North. If the Government are saying that there are circumstances where they are relaxed about that, they should name them and put them on the face of the Bill and be exhaustive with them, so that we can be clear and test the will of the Committee as to whether we agree.
We need to have a greater sense of what we are saying in respect of dialling back people’s rights to see a qualified professional when they are having their liberty removed. If we are rolling that back, let us be really clear about how we are rolling it back—the exact circumstances and what recourse they might have if they or their carers believe that to be wrong. I think this is out of step with all the discussions we had on Tuesday and this morning. I believe it creates a loophole and we need greater clarification.
Caroline Dinenage
I thank those hon. Members who have spoken and tabled these amendments. Amendments 42 and 43, as we have heard, would require an approved mental capacity professional to meet with the person in every case where they are carrying out a pre-authorisation review, rather than—as we propose and as is written on the face of the Bill—where it is “appropriate and practicable”.
The Bill currently states that where an AMCP is carrying out a pre-authorisation review, they must meet with the person where practicable and appropriate. In the vast majority of circumstances it will be practicable and appropriate. This qualification comes from the Law Commission draft Bill, which recognised—we agree with this—that the AMCP will be required to meet with the person in virtually every case. This is an important protection within the liberty protection safeguard system.
Caroline Dinenage
Let me make a bit of progress and I will hopefully answer the hon. Gentleman in the process, but if I do not, he can intervene again.
The exceptions where it would not be practicable and appropriate would depend on the circumstances of the case. Things such as workload, cost and distance would not count under the qualification of not appropriate or practicable. It might be not appropriate or practicable, for example, where the person is in a coma and the family has requested that the AMCP does not interview the person, because it would cause distress. Another example is where someone at the very end of their life needs to be deprived of their liberty in their last few days, and they do not want to see an AMCP. In many cases, we feel it would not be appropriate to override the person’s best interests and force them to meet with an approved mental capacity professional.
Mr Dhesi
The Minister makes some very good points that I have sympathy with, but why cannot we simply include what she says in the code of practice? Setting it in stone in the Bill gives completely the wrong signal to medical care professionals: it makes it the norm rather than the exception.
Caroline Dinenage
I might turn that point round on the hon. Gentleman: we are indeed including it in the code of practice. The Bill states that the AMCP will meet the cared-for person except in the very rare circumstances in which that is not practicable or appropriate. We will set out those rare exceptions, including case studies, in the code of practice—a much better place for them than the Bill, which cannot include such case studies to flesh out what we are trying to achieve.
Dr Williams
As the Minister describes it, the assessment will take place unless it is inappropriate or impractical, so perhaps the Bill ought to say that.
Caroline Dinenage
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but we may be dancing on the head of a pin slightly. To my mind, the meaning of amendment 42 is that in all cases the AMCP should turn up and see the person, whereas we are saying that that should happen in all cases, with some very small exceptions. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South will withdraw the amendment.
Barbara Keeley
The Opposition believe, as the debate has shown, that the amendment would be a crucial safeguard. We have spent a lot of time discussing the code of practice, which is beginning to seem a bit like a unicorn—it is something out there that might or might not appear and be useful.
The amendment is important because the AMCP will have to be satisfied that the reality of the situation matches what is in the application. I am sorry that we are so often having to doubt care home managers and people working in independent hospitals, but that is only because we come across such appalling cases. Earlier today I cited the case of a young man in a care home who was deprived of his liberty for two years and restrained hundreds of times; other cases include people having their arms broken through the use of restraint techniques. All these things happen, and it does not help if an AMCP is prepared to accept the word of the care staff or the people in the independent hospital—the very people who have used the restraint that broke the arm or caused the damage.
I am afraid that we therefore wish to persist in pressing the amendment. I have made it clear that the meetings would not need to be burdensome, and I fully accept that there are circumstances in which a person doing such work will have to be flexible, but I would expect people with the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience to understand how to deal with an end-of-life care case and with the needs of very vulnerable people.
Alex Norris
Unless I am missing something, the Bill states that
“the Approved Mental Capacity Professional must…meet with the cared-for person, if it appears to the Approved Mental Capacity Professional to be appropriate and practicable to do so”.
The word “if” does not imply to me that the exception should apply only in an extraordinarily small minority of cases.
Barbara Keeley
As we have discussed, the AMCP is likely to be engaged only in high-risk cases anyway, so we are not proposing something burdensome. The meeting need only be a few minutes long; I am not suggesting that it has to be exhaustive. It needs to confirm that the condition of the cared-for person matches what is in the application. In a case involving deprivation of liberty, I think family members would welcome someone saying, “I am only here to check that the facts bear out what I am reviewing.” It would be a further safeguard for people in high-risk cases.
We should reject anything that would undermine the ACMP’s ability to make a full and thorough assessment of every case. We wish to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Barbara Keeley
I beg to move amendment 40, in schedule 1, page 17, line 2, at end insert—
“23A If the Approved Mental Capacity Professional determines that—
(a) the authorisation conditions are not met, or
(b) that the authorisation conditions are met but that—
(i) the cared-for person or a person interested in the cared-for person’s welfare objects to the arrangements, or
(ii) the cared-for person would wish to object to the arrangements but cannot communicate an objection
the Approved Mental Capacity Professional must notify the responsible body within 48 hours that a referral to the court is likely to be required.”
This amendment requires an AMCP to notify the responsible body within 48 hours if they determine that the authorisation conditions are not met, or an objection has been raised to the arrangements.
With your permission, Mr Pritchard, I will discuss amendments 40 and 41 together, because they make sense together. They are an important means of filling a statutory grey area in the Bill. They set out what would happen if the AMCP—the person we have just been discussing—decides to reject an application after they have reviewed it. This is not currently contained within the Bill. We believe it leaves a statutory grey area, which needs addressing.
It is important because it is bound up first with the cared-for person’s entitlement to appeal to the Court of Protection and secondly with the enablement of their right to appeal. As the judgment in the case of Steven Neary found, the entitlement to appeal is more subtle than simply giving someone the right to appeal. Article 5, paragraph 4 of the European convention on human rights is not a mere “entitlement” to appeal against any deprivation of liberty, rather that the person must be supported and enabled to do so if they wish. Previous European case law has established that this support must not rely on the good will or discretion of others, or require the person to have any particular prospects of success. Support to exercise rights of appeal should be based on whether the person wishes, or would wish, to appeal.
The case of S v. Russia may be particularly instructive to the Committee. S was a man with learning disabilities, who had been deprived of his liberty by a court order made without his knowledge. The order had also made his mother his legal guardian and representative. Not only did she not facilitate an appeal to a higher court, she applied to have S placed in a psychiatric hospital. Despite repeated attempts, authorities denied his request to appeal. When S took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, it was made clear that his rights under article 5, paragraph 4 had been breached, as the right to appeal had not been made directly available to him. I hope Members will bear that case in mind as we proceed. Relying on family members, who may have different wishes or feelings from the cared-for person when it comes to the right of appeal, is fraught with risks. We have touched on this previously.
This is an area in which the current system is woefully deficient, and the Government are missing an opportunity to improve the situation. The deprivation of liberty safeguards system places a huge amount of weight on the cared-for person, or those close to them, to initiate the rights of appeal. At the moment, it is only as the very last resort that the supervisory body—what we now know as the responsible body—is expected to ensure that a case is referred to the Court of Protection, and even this provision has only recently been established.
Case law in this country has reinforced the concept of enablement of appeal. In the Neary judgment, when it became apparent that the DoLS placed too great a burden on family or friends to exercise rights of appeal, the Court of Protection concluded that
“there is an obligation on the State to ensure that a person deprived of liberty is not only entitled but enabled to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed speedily by a court.”
The fact that this has so far been established only through case law means it is not an explicit statutory obligation.
However, the process for appealing to the Court of Protection is convoluted and unclear because so many players bear responsibility for initiating appeals. In the more recent case of AJ, the judge held that the primary responsibility still lies with the relevant person’s representative. An advocate must expedite the application if the RPR has failed to do so. I apologise for the amount of acronyms that are involved in this Bill; it makes it quite hard work. If these have failed and the person’s right of appeal has not been enabled, then the supervisory body must apply itself. This can pit a single, unpaid family member against what can seem like a forbidding system. I have heard of one case where the cared-for person wanted to appeal to a court and was being represented by their 89-year-old friend. This friend reported that she felt that
“the full force of the state was battling against her.”
Moreover, she said that she faced constant suspicion and was at a constant disadvantage when she was challenging the local authority. That is a major burden to place on somebody who will probably not have any legal expertise, but the Government have done nothing in this Bill to change it.
An alternative and more straightforward approach would be to place a clear statutory duty on the responsible body to ensure that applications to the Court of Protection are made when the person’s article 5(4) rights are “engaged”. The role of family members, as “appropriate persons”, and that of the independent mental capacity advocates, or IMCAs, would then become the backstop position, although I hesitate to use the word “backstop” at the current time. [Laughter.] However, in this case it looks as if one would be useful.
The responsible body is much more likely than a family member to understand the relevant guidance and case law on when rights of appeal are “engaged”. It should know whether alternative means to resolve any dispute are likely to be successful. And unlike the person’s family, friends and even advocates, responsible bodies will have ready access to in-house legal advice, and skilled and experienced professionals who work with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The code of practice and developments in case law can provide guidance to responsible bodies about when these rights of appeal are “engaged”, which would be far more transparent, and much less complex and ad hoc, than the current system.
Once again, I want to be clear that something that is set out in the code of practice is not a right. As is set out in the European convention on human rights, and as was reinforced by the Neary case, support to appeal is a right. As such, it should appear in the Bill. There is an important point about what the Government have achieved through amendment 4, which has already removed one protection in relation to one crucial prerequisite to the right of appeal, and that is information being given in advance.
The removal of paragraph 13 and the provision in sub-paragraph 5 are also critical changes that weaken the right of appeal. Before it was altered, that paragraph read:
“The responsible body must ensure that cases are referred to court when the cared-for person’s right to a court review is engaged.”
In deleting paragraph 13, the Government have also removed obligations on advocates—the IMCAs—to assist the cared-for person in understanding and exercising their relevant rights, and the obligation on the responsible body to
“ensure that cases are referred to court when the cared-for person’s right to a court review is engaged.”
In deleting paragraph 13, the Government have reverted to the deficient system that we currently have. They have removed any provision for the responsible body to enable appeals, instead returning the full weight of this burden to the cared-for person and those close to them. For Labour Members, that is not acceptable and the Government must reinstate that provision as soon as possible. Ensuring that the responsible body has a duty to refer cases to the Court of Protection when this right is engaged is the only way to ensure that appeals are not hampered by lack of resources, confidence or legal know-how.
In cases where the authorisation conditions are not met, we are calling for the approved mental capacity professional, or AMCP, to be required to inform the responsible body that a referral to the Court of Protection is likely to be required within 48 hours. That would provide certainty about what should be done in cases where the authorisation conditions are not met, and it would counteract the weakening of the safeguards through the removal of sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 13.
An important principle is being missed here, a point that was made by Lucy Series in the evidence that she submitted to the Committee. Recourse to the Court of Protection is not, as it is sometimes characterised in debates on the Bill, a sign of failure. Instead, it is a sign that the system is working effectively to place limits on the powers of health and social care professionals to impose a course of action on a person or their family against their wishes, without independent judicial oversight.
I hope the Minister will respond to this issue directly, because it is of crucial importance that her desire to create—as the Government see it—a “streamlined” system does not interfere with the fundamental right of cared-for people to appeal.
Before I press this amendment to a vote, I will also make a brief comment on the Court of Protection more generally. In its report, the Law Commission recommended that there should be a review to determine the appropriate court to rule on these matters. It said that such a review should be carried out
“with a view to promoting the accessibility of the judicial body, the participation in the proceedings of the person concerned, the speedy and efficient determination of cases and to the desirability of including medical expertise within the panel deciding the case.”
The Government initially accepted that proposal, but they have made no move to include it in the Bill. It seems a bit late in this process to adopt the radical reforms that would be needed to the practice and procedure of the Court of Protection, but will the Minister commit to engage with stakeholders to try to improve the way the court operates?
Caroline Dinenage
Thank you for that clarification, Mr Pritchard.
I thank hon. Members for tabling this amendment. I agree that it is vital that where authorisation conditions are not met and the proposed arrangements are reconsidered, the care or treatment that is provided should not deprive someone of their liberty. Arrangements should be more proportionate in such cases. It is essential that the responsible body and others, such as care providers, are notified swiftly. The new model will include a wide range of people with very different circumstances. In some cases, the responsible body should be notified very quickly.
May I seek further clarification?
The Chair
May I say, to help the Minister and the Committee, that the amendments 40 and 41 were coupled together due to agreements that were made outside the Committee? The Minister will have an opportunity—probably next week—to speak to amendment 41.
The Chair
For the ease of the Committee, if the shadow Minister is happy, the Minister can speak to amendments 40 and 41 if she wishes. She may want to speak again next week, or she might want to let that opportunity go by. For the flow of the Committee—if the Committee is happy—let us do it now and crack on.
Caroline Dinenage
I am very grateful for that clarification, Mr Pritchard. I have mixed my contributions on the two amendments together, so I will combine the two, if that is all right with the Committee.
Caroline Dinenage
I am sure we all agree that the role of an AMCP is incredibly important in ensuring that cases under liberty protection safeguards are identified as needing to be referred to a Court of Protection, particularly because they will be reviewing arrangements where objections have been raised by the cared-for person or other people on their behalf. We are very clear that if a person wants to challenge their authorisation in the Court of Protection, they have the right to do so.
I assure hon. Members that the responsible body has a responsibility to ensure that individuals who want to bring a challenge, in line with their article 5 rights, have access to the Court of Protection, as they currently do under the DoLS scheme. That applies, in particular, where a person should have had their case taken to court for a decision, but for some reason that has not occurred. The Bill does not change that. We agree that we expect AMCPs to communicate the outcome of their review swiftly to the responsible body. That will included cases where cared-for people raise objections that may require referral to the Court of Protection.
However, it is not only AMCPs who may be aware of objections. For example, people may raise matters directly with a responsible body or someone providing care or treatment, who may, in turn, raise concerns directly with the responsible body. Reviewers may become aware of an objection during a review of an arrangement that has been authorised. I am concerned that if we specify in the Bill that AMCPs have that duty, it may be felt that only AMCPs can and should identify such cases. Others, such as healthcare staff, should also be able to raise concerns directly with the responsible body, which can consider whether an application to court is swiftly required.
On amendment 40, I agree that it is vital that where authorisation conditions are not met, the proposed arrangements are reconsidered. The new model will include a wide range of people with different circumstances. In some cases, the responsible body should be notified much sooner than after 48 hours. My big concern is that 48 hours risks becoming a target.
The Bill already provides for people to have access to the court to challenge an authorisation, so if, after a review by an AMCP, a decision is made that the conditions are met but the cared-for person or carer still objects, they could take the case to the Court of Protection for challenge. The amendment also requires that where a cared-for person would wish to object but cannot communicate that, that is notified to the responsible body within 48 hours, as likely requiring a referral for challenge at the Court of Protection.
Finally, that is also why it is important that the LPS assessments are of good quality, and that the consultation takes place with the range of people necessary to identify the person’s wishes and feelings, including family and carers. I hope that I have been able to provide the necessary reassurance and that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South is willing to withdraw the amendment.
The Chair
Before I call the shadow Minister, I inform the Committee that the vote on amendment 41—if there is a vote—will be taken next week, although the Committee has agreed to hear representations from the Front-Bench spokespeople on both amendments today. Amendment 40 will be taken shortly.
Barbara Keeley
Thank you for making that clear, Mr Pritchard. It is a small Bill, but grouping some of the amendments is quite difficult.
Our amendments set out what would happen if an AMCP decided to reject an application on review, which is a critical moment for the cared-for person. I hope that I have made it clear that people must be not only allowed to exercise their right to appeal, but enabled and supported to do so. As I said earlier, the Government have weakened that ability, because their amendment 4 removed paragraph 13 of proposed new schedule AA1, which said that
“cases are referred to court when the cared-for person’s right to a court review is engaged.”
In large part, our need to press these amendments is a consequence of what the Government have done.
I hope that I have made it clear that we cannot expect cared-for people and their family members to manage the process of appealing through the courts totally unaided. It is a massive burden. I gave the example of an 89-year-old trying to help somebody take a case through appeal.
The reason for notifying the responsible body is that it is best placed to enable and support the right to appeal, which is the key thing that we want to bring forward. Responsible bodies must be under a duty to facilitate appeals. The Government have removed that duty through their amendment on the right to information. Our amendments seek to undo that damage and support cared-for people to exercise their right to appeal.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Steve McCabe
I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 1, page 17, line 30, leave out “12 months” and insert “3 months”.
This amendment is designed to encourage reviews and appropriate authorisation by making it harder to detain someone for such a lengthy initial period.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in schedule 1, page 18, line 24, leave out “12 months” and insert “3 months”.
Amendment 44, in schedule 1, page 18, line 24, leave out from “less” to end of sub-paragraph (1)(b).
This amendment limits the period of renewal of any authorisation to twelve months.
Amendment 50, in schedule 1, page 18, line 25, leave out “3 years” and insert “6 months”.
This amendment would limit renewal periods to a maximum of 6 months.
Steve McCabe
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I should probably begin by saying to the Minister, just so there is no doubt, that these are genuinely probing amendments. As the Minister will know, Sir Simon Wessely recommended much shorter periods of detention in his original proposals regarding the Mental Health Act 1983, and of course there have been strong arguments—which the Government appear to have resisted—for this legislation to be more fully considered and developed in conjunction with that Act.
A recurring criticism of the operation of mental health legislation is that too many patients are only considered for discharge during preparation for a tribunal hearing. Effectively, the concern is that once a person is captive, as it were—once that person is detained—the authorities are content to leave them there. Under the Bill, a vulnerable person can be deprived of their liberty for three years, as opposed to the previous maximum of 12 months. Given some of the anxieties and concerns about the arrangements in the Bill that we have discussed, both on Tuesday and today—the sense that there may be conflicts of interest, which mean that a person’s interests will not always be safeguarded, and that some of the guarantees do not look as strong as we would like—those rather lengthy periods of detention become an added cause for concern.
I am struggling to understand the justification for having a renewal period of three years, other than on the grounds of cost; I hope the Minister can make that clear to me. She may tell me that it is to cover situations in which the person’s condition is well established and unlikely to change. I presume that if that is the case, what she means is, “We can foresee this situation carrying on, and therefore there is not much point in having further intervention or authorisation regarding the detention arrangements.”
However, what about a condition such as dementia? As I understand it, dementia is a progressive condition, so a person with dementia experiences changes over time. It could be that as a person’s dementia progresses, they need less restrictive care because their condition changes, but it is highly unlikely that that sort of change in what they need would be detected. If that person was already subject to a three-year order, who would be looking to say, “It is obvious that Mrs B’s condition has moved on, and the arrangements that were made 12 months ago can now be altered”? The likelihood is that if that person needed less restrictive conditions, she would be causing less trouble in the establishment that she was living in. She would be one of the patients or residents who was of least concern to the staff, so the improvement in her condition that would merit a lessening of the restrictions on her freedom would be completely missed, because the staff would know perfectly well that she was there for three years. That is how that would be viewed.
I notice that the wording on first renewals says “12 months or less”. What proportion does the Minister consider will be for less than 12 months? What proportion of renewals that can be for three years does she think will actually be made for less than three years? For how long are people normally deprived of their liberty under the present arrangements? What does she think will be the average period under the arrangements she proposes?
Barbara Keeley
I will speak to amendment 44, which appears in my name, and refer to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, although I am mindful of the time.
Under the deprivation of liberty safeguards, there is no explicit renewal mechanism. If an authorisation has come to its end but is still needed, a fresh assessment must be carried out, including of whether the arrangements are in the cared-for person’s best interests. The Law Commission suggested that that was not necessarily what was happening in practice. It found practitioners referring to an annual DoLS review, even though it was effectively a fresh application. That suggests that all applications other than the initial one are becoming a rubber-stamping process, which they should not be.
There is a clear need for a proper renewals process to be put in place. It is not appropriate, as Members on both sides of the Committee have said repeatedly, for full authorisations to be routinely undermined by being treated as tick-box exercises. The other side of that is that we do not want to put people through an unduly stressful experience when there is little prospect of any change being made to the arrangements to which they are subject. We are not intrinsically opposed to a new renewals process that cuts down on duplicated assessment, but we must be aware that any such system of renewal periods contains far fewer safeguards than there should be in the current system. We should implement it only with the utmost caution.
All that must be done to renew an authorisation is to carry out a consultation and certify that the authorisation conditions continue to be met. In most cases, that will be done by the responsible body but, as I said on Tuesday, in some cases it will be done by a care home manager. It has been made clear in the House of Lords and in this place, by Members on both sides, that assessments should not be carried out by care home managers—or indeed, as we have discussed, by anyone with an interest in keeping the person detained.
Let us be clear: at renewal we are doing just that. Such a situation may be acceptable, given the independent nature of the initial medical and capacity assessments, provided that it comes with suitable safeguards. Under the Bill, the initial duration of the liberty protection safeguard can be up to 12 months. After that, a renewal will be needed.
At the first instance, a renewal can last another 12 months. On the face of it, that is not unreasonable. Beyond that, however, authorisations can be renewed for three years, then another three years and another three years. Indeed, they can keep on being renewed for three years indefinitely. The only condition is that the responsible body, or the care home manager, thinks that the authorisation conditions are still met, and will continue to be met for the duration of the authorisation. Three years is a long time. It is so long that, frankly, making any kind of prediction becomes a fallible exercise.
To assume that any change in a cared-for person’s condition could be foreseen over that period is simply unreasonable. Yet that power is being given to independent hospital managers and, in some cases, to care home managers. They are people who have a vested interest in keeping the cared-for person where they are. Particularly in the care home sector, where, as we have mentioned, margins are narrowing and financial planning is becoming harder, a resident whom managers know will stay for at least three years may prove very hard to turn down. The Opposition simply cannot support that.
I have already talked about some of the issues that independent hospitals can pose. We know that under the current system people can be trapped in inappropriate placements for years. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked an interesting set of questions about the data that exists. What do we know about this? We know from NHS Digital data that the average length of stay in an assessment and treatment unit in an independent hospital is more than five years. Under the current regime, one in seven people held in such a unit has been there for more than a decade. One in five people in an ATU has not had a review in the past year. Imagine what could happen if the renewal period needs to be applied only every three years, which is a real fear.
As the Government opposed our amendment, independent hospitals will not be answerable to anybody when authorising or renewing deprivations of liberty. I ask the Minister: how can it be appropriate for these institutions to deprive somebody of their liberty for three years without any external checks?
When the Law Commission recommended a 12-month initial authorisation period, it said that that would match the minimum recommended timescale for reviews under the Care Act 2014 and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, and therefore help to minimise the duplication of assessments. I have already said that that is a positive aim. If care plans are being reviewed anyway, it does not seem overly burdensome to ask that the authorisation of the deprivation of liberty be renewed in the same time period. No small amount of effort has gone into ensuring that the liberty safeguards scheme is closely aligned with the care system, and that assessments will work in harmony. That is a positive aim if it ensures that the cared-for person receives a better service, but it cannot be right that we end up inappropriately depriving people of their liberty for years at a time.
Given the serious impact of depriving a person of their liberty, the obligations on the responsible body at renewal are not onerous. The condition or circumstances of the cared-for person might change significantly within a much shorter period, and different or less restrictive arrangements might become possible. This point needs to be addressed. It is not an authorisation condition that no less restrictive options are available. There is no obligation to give that full consideration at renewal or at any other time, but there is a clear principle that we should always seek to avoid depriving somebody of their liberty where possible. I hope the Minister will tell us what the Government will do to ensure that renewals take that into account.
Amendment 44 seeks to limit the length of any authorisation to 12 months before it must be renewed, which would allow renewals to be bound up with the renewal of other elements of the person’s care. That would ensure that it is not an excessively burdensome exercise either for the responsible body or for the cared-for person. At a time when local government resources are stretched thinly, I can understand the desire to take work off their shoulders by allowing them to renew authorisations for longer. Another way to ease the pressures on local authorities is to resource them properly to carry out their duties. It is unacceptable for the Bill to undermine crucial protections that cared-for people need in order to disguise the cuts that local government has had to bear. I have said that before in this debate and I am sure that I will say it again.
A renewal period of three years appears to be a cost-cutting exercise. I understand that the Minister is very concerned that we do not place too extreme a burden on family members and others with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare. However, their involvement in the renewal process is limited to being consulted. I do not believe that being asked once a year for one’s opinion on whether a relative’s care has changed can be seen as excessively burdensome. Most family members would welcome the fact that their opinion was being sought and that efforts were being made to ensure that their relative’s best interests were protected.
The other safeguard provided to reassure us that a three-year renewal is appropriate is that a series of regular reviews will be carried out. Will the Minister tell us what that means? After all, the Bill makes no mention of what a regular review entails. I presume it is something that will be contained in the code of practice, like an awful lot of other things.
We are talking about a fundamental right. If a review is the safeguard being proposed, it must exist in statute. Anything else risks people’s rights being undermined. I am not alone in my concern about the length of the renewal period. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak made a very good case for examining the renewal periods and has asked some very probing questions about them. A cross-sector group of organisations including Mencap, Disability Rights UK and Liberty has written to me expressing deep concern that the provision will lead to people being deprived of their liberty for inappropriate lengths of time. Perhaps most significantly, the group includes the Alzheimer’s Society. People with dementia are one of the groups for whom frequent renewals may not be appropriate, yet even the organisation speaking in the interests of those people feels that three years is too long.
Caroline Dinenage
I thank the hon. Members who have tabled the amendments on authorisations up to three years. I stress that this was a recommendation of the Law Commission, in particular for people with long-term progressive conditions from which they are unlikely to recover. It was suggested because many people and their families told the Law Commission, throughout its extensive consultation and work, that they felt that starting the process from scratch every year was unnecessary and cumbersome.
I should also stress that the three-year authorisation period starts only after there have been two one-year authorisations, and the periods set are maximums, not minimums or targets. The Bill does not prevent a responsible body from approving an authorisation for the period set out in the amendment if that is appropriate. Furthermore, the responsible body is required to specify a continuous programme of reviews. If a person’s circumstances change significantly, the authorisation will be reviewed and may be found to no longer be valid. That could easily be the case with somebody with dementia, as has already been highlighted. In that way, I believe that the provision actually brings in additional safeguards.
I hope that has provided clarification and I ask hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.
Steve McCabe
My amendments were probing amendments, so I do not wish to push them to a vote. I hope the Minister will reflect again on what I said about monitoring how the detention periods are used, because I fear there is a greater risk here than people may have anticipated. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Barbara Keeley
Can I just make a couple of points? There is near unanimity in the sector that three years for renewals is too long. Even the Alzheimer’s Society is worried about the impact it could have. The power on renewals lies with the managers of independent hospitals or care homes, who are people with a vested interest in renewing the authorisation and keeping the cared-for person as a client. In the amendment, we suggest a 12-month period, which would allow the renewal process to be built on the all the other assessments that cared-for people undergo annually as part of their care programme. That would avoid the process placing an excessive burden on them.
Caroline Dinenage
I am sorry for pushing everybody’s patience, but I need to clarify something the hon. Lady said. I am sure she said it inadvertently. She said that a care home manager can renew an authorisation. That is not correct. Only a responsible body can renew an authorisation and only when the responsible body is satisfied that the conditions continue to be met.
Barbara Keeley
The point remains for independent hospitals. In other amendments, we have tried to move that independent hospitals are not responsible bodies, but the Government did not accept those amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 44, in schedule 1, page 18, line 24, leave out from “less” to end of sub-paragraph (1)(b).—(Barbara Keeley.)
This amendment limits the period of renewal of any authorisation to twelve months.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rail Infrastructure Investment
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Fourth Report of the Transport Committee, Rail infrastructure investment, HC 582, and the Government response, HC 1557.
I am delighted to lead this debate on the Transport Committee’s Fourth Report of this Session, on rail infrastructure investment. I will start the debate as we started our report, by underlining the importance of the UK’s railways. They are a vital part of our national transport network and make a substantial contribution to the economy. Their importance has been recognised by successive Governments of all parties, with billions of pounds invested in rail every year. The importance of our railways is not in question.
However, there are serious challenges for both rail passengers and the industry. While 1.7 billion journeys were made by rail in 2018, it was not an easy year for passengers, who faced disruption and disappointment. Planned improvements—including electrification in south Wales, the midlands and Cumbria, and the opening of Crossrail—have not been delivered, while May’s timetable changes caused unprecedented chaos across the network. This year started with more unwelcome news for rail commuters, with fares increasing by an average of 3.1%.
We must work towards improving services for rail passengers and freight customers. Investment in the network is essential for enabling better services, which in turn provide new opportunities for our constituents and support the development of our towns and cities. That was the focus of our report, and today I will look at three of the main issues it raised.
First, we need to ensure that rail investment and its benefits are shared equally across the country. It is clear that many feel that rail investment is unfairly centralised in a small number of areas, and the Department for Transport has done little to respond to those concerns. Secondly, there are serious questions about what future improvements the Government’s new approach to funding rail enhancements will deliver. To date, more than a year after the new system was put in place, there is a total absence of information about what proposals are even being considered. Thirdly, there remain questions about the future role that electrification will play in improving the UK’s rail network, following the cancellation of the electrification of the midland main line north of Kettering to Nottingham and Sheffield, the Great Western main line to Swansea and Cardiff and the lakes line between Oxenholme and Windermere.
There is long-standing dissatisfaction about the level of investment in the rail network in different regions, and our report looked in detail at the disparity in investment across the country. We considered the issue in the context of the Government’s stated intention to rebalance the economy away from London, exemplified by the northern powerhouse and the midlands engine. From 2012 to 2017, the north-east, the east midlands, the south-west and Wales all received less than 10% of the level of rail investment that went to London. Only the north-west, the south-east and Scotland received even a fifth of the level of rail investment in our capital.
The capital’s size and population mean that it is unsurprising that more is spent in London, in absolute terms, than in other regions. However, there is also a substantial disparity between spending per capita in London, at £773 a head in 2016-17, and other regions, with a low of just £70 per head in my own region, the east midlands. The Institute for Public Policy Research North analysed the Government’s planned transport spending, as set out in the Government’s 2016 “National Infrastructure and Construction Pipeline”, stating that it showed problems not only in the past but in the future and
“a stark gap between London and the rest of the country”,
with £1,900 per capita spending planned in London from 2017 onwards, compared with £400 in the north.
The sense of unfairness felt by many regions across the country has been exacerbated by continued investment in major developments that primarily benefit London. It is hardly surprising that there was real anger when, four days after the cancellation of those electrification schemes, the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London jointly announced an agreement in principle to fund Crossrail 2 at an estimated cost of £30 billion.
The Government have tried to rebut the figures about the regional disparity of investment in our railway. Their response to our report said that
“the planned spending per head figure is within 33% of the national average for all nine English regions. Moreover, the overall figure for the three Northern regions (North West, North East, Yorkshire and Humber) is £1,039 per head, compared to £1,076 per head for the Middle regions (East of England, East Midlands and West Midlands) and £1,029 per head for the Southern regions (London, South East and South West).”
However, those figures are based on a selective analysis. By aggregating regions, variations in the midlands, the north and the south are masked. For example, Yorkshire and the Humber received just £729 per head, the north-east £822 per head and the south-west £851 per head.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
As usual, my hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the report that her Committee has produced. She just referenced the funding for Yorkshire and the Humber. The Department for Transport seems to put its head in the sand whenever it is challenged on these regional disparities. Given that the new Rail Minister is a Yorkshire MP, does she think that we might now see a recognition that the north has not had its fair share, and that we will now start to get our fair share?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend has been an outstanding advocate for the north and its need for rail investment. The Minister is a newish Rail Minister, but I know that he previously served in the Department for Transport. We had discussions in the past, when he was the Minister responsible for buses, and I always found him genuinely prepared to listen. I hope that he brings the same approach to his new role.
In January 2018 IPPR North assessed the Government’s analysis of regional spending and stated that it excluded spending in the pipeline for after 2020-21, meaning that the analysis omitted some £42.5 billion of planned investment, 40% of which—£19.8 billion—is earmarked for London. The Government have therefore presented, even if accurate, a rather skewed picture of how planned transport spending will be distributed across the country in the coming years.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of presenting our Committee’s report and explaining how the Government tried to fiddle the figures to obscure the fact that London is getting about 80% of the funding. Does she agree that this will not be rectified and made fair until the methodology for deciding on investment schemes is changed? It massively over-weights time saved, which always pushes investment towards densely populated cities such as London, rather than Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds or the other regional cities.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will come to in due course. He is a long-standing, experienced and expert member of the Transport Committee, and I am delighted that he is here this afternoon.
The DFT also argues that it is difficult to break down regional spending accurately, saying that where expenditure on the railway takes place is not always an accurate reflection of where the benefits are felt. The Department also emphasises the difficulty of analysing investment annually, or even five-yearly, given that railway assets typically have a lifespan of 25 to 40 years, pointing out that there was inevitably
“a cyclical nature to replacing them that does not lend itself to an even split of funding across all regions within every 5 year control period.”
Of course, there is merit in those arguments, but I simply ask the Minister, when was there a time when investment in the north exceeded investment in the south?
While the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the economy is welcome, it is clear from past experience that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, current methods for making investment decisions make it much easier for highly populated, economically successful places to prove the case for schemes in their area, because the model has a bias towards schemes that exhibit strong levels of potential demand and/or high potential to relieve existing transport congestion. Witnesses to the inquiry told us that this approach inevitably drew more investment to London and unless the system could be altered to take greater account of wider economic benefits, the process would be inexorable.
Maria Machancoses, the director of Midlands Connect, told us that
“figures on the disparity of investment, no matter which formula you look at—whether by the DFT or the Treasury—they all say that outside London it is just not working.”
Her view was that this should be the starting point from which to “move forward.” However, in their response to our report, the Government did not accept the suggestion that their scheme appraisal methods did not provide a fair share of investment in rail across the UK’s regions. This completely fails to acknowledge the overwhelming feeling across the country that investment in rail is unfairly concentrated in a few small areas.
While there are undeniable complexities in accurately breaking down regional spending and identifying where the benefits of investment are felt, the Government must recognise the concerns that have been raised about the regional disparities of investment in our rail network and take action to address them. It is hard to believe that the Department will do so if it does not accept that there is a problem in the first place.
The DFT has published a rebalancing toolkit, to be used as part of the strategic assessment of future investment programmes. This was welcomed in principle by our witnesses. However, when we asked the then Rail Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for examples of the toolkit’s influence on DFT’s transport investment decisions, he could not provide a single specific example. He told us that it was “relatively early days” for the approach. Our witnesses said that the Government needed to prove that what the rebalancing toolkit is meant to achieve will actually take place. I ask the Minister, over a year after the toolkit was introduced, how has it influenced the DFT’s investment decisions?
In our report, we also called on the Government to be more specific about the economic rebalancing effects they intend to achieve. We call on them to tell the regions in need of regeneration how they can prove their cases and secure investment. We argued that people in the north-east and south-west, regions that have experienced relative under-investment in recent periods, must have a clear sense of what the Government are trying to achieve in order to be able to judge their success.
We also recommended that use of the rebalancing toolkit be mandatory and that the Department worked with Her Majesty’s Treasury to explore how economic rebalancing can be made an intrinsic part of appraising transport schemes. That would put rebalancing at the heart of investment decisions, rather than it merely being an add-on. In response, the Government have told us that it would be impractical to make use of the toolkit mandatory. Why has the Department developed a toolkit that is impractical to use?
Let me turn to rail electrification. Under successive Governments since 2009, the Department has made a compelling case for widespread electrification, moving from diesel to electric traction, particularly on heavily used parts of the network, which would reduce journey times and facilitate lighter, more efficient trains, reducing long-term costs, improving environmental sustainability and enhancing capacity. The Government’s decision to cancel electrification schemes in south Wales, the midlands and the Lake district were a huge disappointment for people who had been promised improvements to their network. Following the cancellation of these schemes, there are also serious questions about the Government’s support for future electrification of the network.
It is clear that the plans for electrification were over-ambitious and suffered from inadequate planning and budgeting. The schemes were hampered by an unclear definition of responsibilities between the DFT, Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road, and disappointment at their cancellation was compounded by poor communication by the Department for Transport.
Although the decision to cancel the midland main line and the lakes line schemes was taken in March 2017, it was not announced until July, on the day the House rose for its summer recess, limiting opportunities for scrutiny of the decision. The Government also presented the decision not to electrify these lines as a positive story about passenger benefits being delivered in other ways. The announcement, unsurprisingly, was met with scepticism by those who saw it as a pragmatic, cost-based response to overruns. The National Audit Office agreed with those sceptics, and concluded:
“The Department decided to cancel projects in 2017 because Network Rail’s 2014-2019 investment portfolio was no longer affordable.”
Passengers on the midland main line and Great Western main line should eventually see some improvements in capacity and journey time from other enhancements in control period 5, but the way that enhancement to these lines has been handled is far from ideal and has done nothing to create confidence in the Government’s approach to rail improvements.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady, my friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, on securing the debate. She took us through our Select Committee report and chaired us so well. The Government rightly place great faith in the future in hybrid trains and bi-mode, but does she share my concern that we are in a bit of a hiatus? We either have electrification or technology that is not quite there. Many communities—mine in particular, with the extension of HS1—are faced with uncertainty as to whether they will ever get a better service.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman is a very valued member of the Select Committee. While new traction, hydrogen and battery potentially have a place on our railway, it is clear that they are not sufficiently developed to be a proper replacement for electrification. There is some doubt about whether they will ever be a suitable replacement for electric trains, particularly on inter-city journeys operating at higher speeds. He is right to raise concerns about the time that might be taken for parts of the country to see improvements to their services, particularly if there is a continued aspiration to use bi-mode technology. While that can provide some benefits, it undoubtedly also has a significant impact on operating costs. When passengers are very concerned about their fares raising, building in long-term costs seems a wise approach.
While it is now clear that the electrification schemes that had been planned were undeliverable, the Railway Industry Association and others were convinced that, for now, electrification remained the optimal solution to train traction. The case for electrification is particularly strong on heavily used routes, balancing significant benefits to passengers with the wider environmental benefits and long-term cost efficiency. Our report called for electrification to be delivered through a long-term rolling programme in which the Department, Network Rail and the wider industry learn the lessons of earlier schemes and strive to reduce costs. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water.
A key driver of Government investment in the rail network is their commitment to reduce carbon emissions. In February 2018, the Government called on the industry to produce a vision for how it will decarbonise with an initial response due in September last year. The Government response to our report confirmed that an industry taskforce, led by Malcolm Brown, is taking this forward. Have the Government received this taskforce’s report on how to decarbonise the rail system? If so, what does it say and what are the Government doing with it? David Clarke, technical director of the Railway Industry Association, has said that to achieve the Government’s aim of decarbonising UK railways by 2040,
“electrification must be one of the prime options for intensively used routes”.
The Government accepted our recommendation that it should engage with RIA’s electrification cost challenge initiative. The Department committed to producing a report on cost-effective electrification by this summer, but has said that it will remain agnostic about the best means of securing rail enhancement and that it does not expect proposals for new enhancement to begin with a predefined solution such as electrification. I am afraid it is clear that the Government have no plans for the future electrification of the railways.
I ask the Minister to update us on the Government’s work to produce a report with the industry on cost-effective electrification. When we conducted our inquiry, we heard that there was considerable interest in third-party-funded electrification schemes on the midland main line. We recommended that those proposals should be fully considered as an alternative to the proposed bi-mode solution.
The Government accepted our recommendation and said that they would fully consider
“Any proposals made to government or Network Rail about private sector solutions on the Midland Mainline that could provide benefits in addition to the passenger benefits that are being secured by the Government.”
What discussions have the Government had with third parties about proposals for electrifying the midland main line, and how will the improvements for passengers of the enhancements that will be going ahead compare with the improvements that would be delivered by electrification?
Some hon. Members present represent areas of the north covered by the transpennine route. The upgrade of that route is expected to include some electrification, but those enhancements have been considerably reduced since the then Chancellor announced in 2016 that the Government were
“giving the green light to High Speed 3 between Manchester and Leeds”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 961.]
There are serious concerns that the upgrade will not be fit for purpose for freight trains, and that because only part of the line will be electrified, the route will need bi-mode trains, which will build in higher operating costs for years to come. Are the current proposals for the transpennine route upgrade in line with the advice from Transport for the North? If not, why not? I note the letter to the Secretary of State for Transport from the operator of Humber, Mersey and Tees ports on 7 January, which says:
“It is of increasing concern that the Department for Transport and Network Rail are undervaluing our industry in the North and undermining the economic goal and objectives of the Northern Powerhouse; it will only make the productivity gap between the North and South of England even greater and devalues further the role of Transport for the North.”
It is concerning when the industry feels that the transpennine route upgrade, as it is currently considered, will lead
“to an utter dependence upon the M62 for Transpennine freight traffic for at least another generation.”
We have talked about some of the problems experienced as a result of planned railway improvements in the past five years, which have triggered successive reviews of the planning and delivery of enhancements and led to a substantial change in the way future investment in the railways will be considered and delivered. The next five-year control period will focus on operations, maintenance and renewals, the volume of which will increase substantially, not least because of the number of renewals that have been postponed from the current control period.
Following those postponements, the greater focus on maintenance and renewals in control period 6, which starts in April, is necessary and welcome, but there are long-standing concerns in the industry that investment in renewals has been lumpy, stop-start and boom and bust. We have heard that the level of uncertainty about upcoming spending could have knock-on effects on the wider industry’s confidence to invest in its workforce, skills and innovation.
In our report, we called on the Government to work with Network Rail, the regulator and the industry to look at the ways in which investment could be smoothed out from the start of control period 6, throughout that period and beyond. The Government accepted that recommendation, so I ask the Minister, how has the Department worked with the industry to smooth out investment for the upcoming control period?
Instead of forming part of the five-year control periods for Network Rail investment, future enhancements of the rail network are now subject to a separate process. The new rail network enhancements pipeline is intended to support a continuous planning approach and move away from the overly rigid five-year cycle that was linked to railway control periods.
The Government have signalled that they expect more railway enhancements to be market-led proposals brought forward by third parties. We heard that there was likely to be interest from third parties in bringing forward such proposals, but it was not clear to us that Network Rail had the structures or culture in place to support such third parties to engage and participate in the planning, delivery, funding or financing of the railway.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I echo the earlier comments of my colleague on the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), about my hon. Friend’s skill in presenting her arguments and chairing the Committee. Does she share my concerns about the market-led proposals? In my part of the world, we have had some major proposals for east west rail, which has been promoted by the National Infrastructure Commission, but there is considerable confusion about whether that railway will be privately run, as the Secretary of State has suggested, or whether there is a plan B. I am not convinced that there is and I am interested in my hon. Friend’s views on that.
Lilian Greenwood
It is wonderful to see so many members of the Select Committee here. My hon. Friend raises an important point about what will happen if market-led proposals do not provide the opportunities that the Department hopes. I will touch on that in a moment.
In November, the Government said that they had received 30 responses to their call for ideas for market-led proposals to enhance the railway, but that they could not make an announcement about individual schemes because the proposals had been submitted in confidence. How have those market-led proposals progressed since November, and do the Government expect any of them to be delivered, including the one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner)?
There was significant support for moving enhancements planning away from the control period process, and we support the intention behind the rail network enhancements pipeline, which should ensure that the planning mistakes made over the past five years are not repeated. However, we also found a substantial risk that the rush to deliver poorly planned and scoped schemes in the current period could be replaced by a different problem—a slowdown or interregnum in new enhancement projects.
That is why we called on the Government to provide a clear set of strategic priorities for rail infrastructure investment in each region, and to outline the specific projects likely to be available for third-party investment. The Government refused to set priorities for each region, so I ask the Minister today to set out the Government’s priorities for rail enhancements over the next five years.
We were also concerned that the process outlined by the Government did not provide the reassurance and certainty on future investment that the rail industry is looking for. We said that more transparency about the enhancements pipeline and decision-making processes in the Department was needed. That is particularly true if the potential for a substantial increase in third-party investment is to be realised. The Government accepted that recommendation and said that they are
“committed to transparent policy making and intend to make clear public statements”
as investment decisions are taken at each stage of the pipeline. So far, however, we have seen no such statements.
The Railway Industry Association has said:
“The visibility of enhancements remains a major concern for rail suppliers. There is now a lack of an obvious enhancements pipeline, with no construction-ready schemes in the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline…published in 2018.”
Last week, I asked the Department how many rail enhancement schemes were being considered as part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, and what stage each proposal was at. Again, the Minister told me that the Government
“are committed to transparent policy making”,
but failed to answer any points of my question. That means that, almost a year after it was set up, the Department has yet to reveal a single proposal being considered as part of the pipeline. We are none the wiser about what, if any, future enhancements the Department is considering, let alone planning.
In response to my question, the Minister also said:
“Network Rail…will continue to provide public updates on the progress of enhancements in the portfolio”,
but it is not clear at what stage of the pipeline proposals will enter the portfolio. Can the Minister confirm at what stage enhancements will be included in Network Rail’s enhancements delivery plan? It seems to me that it is only those that have reached the delivery section of the pipeline that will be exposed in that way, and we will not know what is in the development and design parts. Will there be any transparency of proposals before the decision to deliver them?
Although the Government have accepted a number of our recommendations, as I have outlined, their response to our report was disappointing in several regards. It seemed to show an unwillingness to engage with some of our key conclusions and recommendations.
The Association for Consultancy and Engineering agreed with our assessment of the Government’s response, telling us that the Government had
“failed to meaningfully engage with the expertise provided by industry, and the practical recommendations outlined in the report”.
It told us:
“As evidence givers, it was disheartening for ACE to see the DfT and the ORR”—
that is, the Office of Rail and Road—
“pay such little attention to the solutions proposed by the committee, including dismissing some of them outright.”
I have asked the Minister to respond today on some of the points where we felt that the Government’s response to our report was less than satisfactory. I hope that he will take the opportunity to expand on the Government’s response, for the benefit of both this House and those in the rail industry who were as frustrated as we were by the Government’s response.
To conclude, although our report welcomed much about the Government’s—
Graham Stringer
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way as she draws to her conclusion. She has already mentioned the fact that it took four months from the decision to cancel the electrification to a written statement to the House on the last day before the summer recess. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), assured the Committee that there would be no change in the investment plans when the Office for National Statistics had changed the designation of Network Rail’s public status so that it became part of the public expenditure. However, that has driven many of the cuts in the future investment programme.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have not only failed to respond positively to our recommendations but failed to play a straight bat, in not presenting information to the Committee that would have enabled us to carry through properly our job of scrutinising the Department?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I do not know whether the previous Secretary of State was really unaware of the implications of that change, but certainly our experience as a Committee is that we have not always had the candour that we would have wanted from the Department. That is disappointing when we are simply trying to do the job of scrutiny that this Committee was appointed to undertake on behalf of Parliament.
As I have said, we welcome much about the Government’s approach to investment in the rail network. There is no argument about the importance of investment or about the fact that the Government are investing significant sums, but the issue is how they have gone about investing and how they ensure that that investment provides good value for money and strategic thought about the long term.
We agree with the increased focus on renewals and we agree that decisions about railway enhancements should be taken out of the five-yearly control period process. However, there are still outstanding questions that were not addressed in the Government’s response to our report. How will the Government meet their commitment to rebalancing the economy when it comes to investment in rail? How do they plan to decarbonise the railway network if they have completely ruled out electrification? What future enhancements to the railway network will emerge from the new rail network enhancements pipeline? I look forward to the Minister’s update on all those points.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Evans. Out of courtesy, I must apologise to hon. Members in advance just in case—I emphasise “in case”—I need to leave before the conclusion of the debate, due to another commitment. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for the case that she has just put, and to all other members of the Committee for their work on “Rail infrastructure investment”. I have a copy of the report and have looked at it, and it is fair to say that it covers a wide range of issues, which the hon. Lady spoke about in her very good and detailed speech.
As the Minister will know, rail infrastructure is incredibly important, not only to my constituents in Witham but to the entire east of England region. I will start by paying tribute to him, because he has recently become the Rail Minister. I had the privilege of working with him previously, in his other incarnation in the Department for Transport, so it is great to see him back there. I thank him and his officials for giving me some time recently, to discuss not only some of the issues that I will raise today, but some of my concerns, as well as the developments that are taking place on the Great Eastern main line and some of the big investment opportunities that we would like to see for the region.
The Minister will know from our recent discussions about the work of the Great Eastern main line taskforce, which I currently chair and which is putting forward the case for strategic investment in rail infrastructure. Back in 2014 we submitted to the Government a business case for a package of investments—I have it here: “exhibit A”—which I have no doubt the Minister is fully versed in, because I know he has seen copies of it. This business case from 2014 discussed the potential to deliver over £4 billion of gross value added to the economy, to support thousands of new jobs, and to help meet the transport needs of the population and housing growth in the region.
Of course, this business case was put together in 2014 by all the Members of Parliament from Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. It received a great deal of Government interest and time, with interest shown by the former Chancellor, the former Prime Minister and various Ministers, including the former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin).
As we have seen in the east of England, and are still seeing, there is so much opportunity for economic growth in our area, with lower housing costs than in other areas. We are on a commuter line and we are accommodating a greater number of commuters and families who travel to London, and not only in Essex but across the eastern region. We are very proud of that. Families choose to enjoy the enormous benefits of living in the villages of my constituency and elsewhere in the region, while being able to work in London as well. I have to say that that is because of the Government’s wider investment in other sectors, including education—we have some amazing schools now—and quality of life is obviously a key feature too.
Of course, Essex and the east of England are fast-growing parts of the country, and they are strategically placed to deliver new jobs and economic growth. Look at what we have going on. We have world-leading businesses and centres of innovation: the Essex knowledge gateway, the University of East Anglia, Essex University and Cambridge University. They are all great hubs of intellect, innovation, jobs, economic growth and entrepreneurship. We have a diverse range of businesses, such as financial services, logistics, manufacturing, construction, modern bio-tech and science. We also have key international transport hubs, as my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware, including the key ports in London Gateway, Tilbury, Harwich and Felixstowe, and our airports at Stansted and Southend.
In Essex we have great business voices, which were instrumental in making the case for investment in our rail back in 2014. They include the Essex chamber of commerce, which made the business case, outlined the GVA of rail investment, combined the numbers and showed the economic growth that we can deliver outside London, and the new opportunities that will come our way. The Essex economy is already touching £40 billion in GVA, and obviously since 2010 the number of entrepreneurs has risen and we see business growth getting stronger and stronger. I see how much our businesses are already doing, and the jobs and prosperity they create. I am incredibly proud to see the enterprising spirit they have shown. Like me, they look forward to a future in which we can continue to build upon their contributions. They have a positive outlook for the future, not only for Essex but for the whole region.
We know that one of the key factors for growth is strategic investment in our roads and, in particular, our rail, so that we continue to grow and secure long-term investment. Of course, such investment means work on key roads and economic corridors, such as the A12 widening scheme and the dualling of the A120, but it also means investing in our rail network. Our rail network across the east of England has suffered from severe under-investment for many years. The Chair of the Transport Committee made some very important points today. She spoke about regional disparity with regard to the north of England, but of course my taskforce in the east of England has demonstrated that even notional calculations of regional finance mask regional disparities. Commuters on the Great Eastern main line, and particularly Greater Anglia commuters, are net contributors to the Treasury through their rail fares. Of course we want to see some of that money coming back out.
The Select Committee’s report quite rightly raised the whole issue of rebalancing rail investment to ensure that it is spread across the country, which I have consistently pushed for. I agree that we need to invest more widely and look at ways to support schemes in the regions and economic centres. Of course, our whole economy needs to become much more efficient, and investing in rail infrastructure across the country will help to deliver that.
However, I emphasise to the Minister that although it seems on paper that investment has been skewed towards London, partly because of the high cost of Crossrail, it is also important that we see a rebalancing exercise that does not come at the expense of excluding investment opportunities that would deliver high levels of value for money and help to drive billions of pounds back into the whole of the UK economy. Of course, we are set to benefit from approximately £2.2 billion of investment through the control period 6 process, but I stress that that investment is to cover maintenance, operations and renewal.
Paragraph 80 of the excellent report, on page 28, focuses on the historic lumpiness of renewals investment. Investment that covers maintenance, renewals, and so on goes to patch things up, and the graph on page 28 shows that the lumpiness of expenditure goes across the various control periods. We want to ensure a consistent level of investment that covers maintenance, so that we are not simply patching things up. It is a welcome commitment. From our perspective, the new refurbishment —new trains, funds for renewal, and repairs to bridges, embankments and signalling to deal with level crossings—will of course be beneficial. However, that is no substitute for a clear strategy of strategic investments in new infrastructure so that we can have a high-performing railway to support our region. That is the right thing, and it is what our commuters all want.
Daniel Zeichner
The right hon. Lady is making an excellent contribution on behalf of the east of England. I wonder whether she agrees that there are significant possibilities for bringing forward digitalisation of the railways. I am told that a huge amount could be done through digitalisation to better address capacity constraints, and that a relatively modest investment in global terms could be transformational in the east. My concern is that, looking ahead over these very long periods, we may well find that technology has moved much more quickly and we have not taken best advantage of those technological changes. Does the right hon. Lady share that concern?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was planning to touch on the significance of digital railway. I mentioned efficiency, and the whole point is how we can use new technology to drive efficiency. Everything is part of a process, and new technology can trump things that have previously gone on. There are also new opportunities for digital signalling. For example, on the Great Eastern main line we are working with the Department for Transport and the Minister to continue to make the case for digital signalling, and part of the case that the GEML taskforce is putting forward is compelling. I know that the Minister is looking forward to receiving the business case that we are currently working on. In previous discussions and meetings he has heard me speak about the pipeline business case that we are working on, and how we will build on the 2014 business case and enhance the numbers, the financials and the key programmes that we should be putting in place. We will revise that business case based on the latest figures for growth, the economy and business, and we will demonstrate that investing in rail in the east of England will help the Government to reach their ambitious targets, not just for housing but for economic growth and regeneration.
Those projects are going to be vast. They will include the introduction of a passing loop in the vicinity of Witham town, right through the heart of the Witham constituency; the redoubling of Haughley junction; improvements to the Trowse swing bridge; re-signalling south of Chelmsford; and improvements to Liverpool Street station. Combined, those investments will increase capacity on the network and—importantly for rail users in my constituency—reduce delays. Through the new franchise to 2025, we will benefit from a new fleet of rolling stock, and the first of those trains are due to enter service very soon. We want to make sure that when they come in we do not have disruption and can get the benefits of efficiencies. Over £1 billion of new investment has been secured following the recommendations of the GEML taskforce, which were actioned by the Government. Of course, we want that infrastructure to complement new trains and maximise the benefits, as well as include those key infrastructure projects.
As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) has said, service improvements on the Great Eastern main line can be delivered through digital railway technology, along with the long-awaited development of Beaulieu Park railway station—Chelmsford parkway, as some call it—with three or four tracks and platforms to facilitate future growth in service opportunities. MPs, councils, businesses and commuters across the region are united behind that vision for rail service across the east of England, and I hope that the Minister and the Department will continue to work with us and back us, working with friends in the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to get that vision fully funded. It is about having an integrated approach across Government to delivering improvement in our rail service and our network, which matters when it comes to wider Government funding.
The Transport Committee’s report comments on the investment process and the enhancement pipeline, which was announced last year and which the hon. Member for Nottingham South spoke about. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will talk about how those schemes can go through that pipeline so that we can be efficient in getting the right kinds of decisions.
I will touch on a few other points very quickly. One—this will also interest the hon. Member for Cambridge—is investing in rail more widely in the region that covers Stansted. Stansted is the third busiest airport by passenger numbers in the country, and the second largest by freight. It has capacity for more flights, and given the capacity issues at Heathrow, we should be encouraging more travel to other airports. Of course, connectivity through the rail link from Stansted to London and further is a major barrier to growth, and our former colleague, the right hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst—now Lord Haselhurst, following his ascension to the other place—is working on proposals to improve connectivity through the West Anglia Taskforce. I commend his work on the issue. We often talk about Crossrail 2 presenting an opportunity for connectivity in that part of the eastern region, and I would like the Minister to provide any updates he can in his concluding remarks.
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for the opportunity to speak today off the back of the Committee’s excellent report. I also praise the Minister for his attention to rail, obviously from an east of England point of view. I ask him to bring together all the levers of Government—not just those in his Department—to catalyse funding across other Government Departments in order to unlock economic growth and opportunity across the regions of our country, so that we can use our rail much more strategically. Rail investments have been a catalyst for economic growth.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am a new member of the Select Committee on Transport, and did not serve on that Committee while this inquiry was under way; nevertheless, it raises a number of points that I want to speak about. I am also pleased to have been able to join the Transport Committee, particularly under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I have found her to be supportive, enthusiastic and knowledgeable, and she has made me feel welcome in that Committee in the few weeks that I have been a member, as have the Committee’s other members.
Many people in this country are dependent on rail services, and when there are problems, our constituents really tell us about them. Rail travel is essential for those who are unable to drive or do not own a car for whatever reason, and for people such as me who are dependent on rail for their commute to work and for whom there is no alternative, especially when car commuting would take much longer or be too costly. Since the advent of mobile technology, the train journey means more productive working time for those required to travel long distances, or even for me on my half-hour rail commute, than driving does. One can also use the journey as an opportunity to catch up on sleep—another option that is not available when one is driving. Then, there are tourists: UK and overseas residents letting the train take the strain. For all those people and many more, good train services really matter.
It is not just about the quality of services; it is about price. The real cost of rail travel continues to rise year on year. The real cost of driving has flatlined or even fallen, but UK commuters are paying about 17% of their average wage for their season ticket—by far the highest in Europe—and the cost of rail travel continues to rise.
Rail services that are reliable, convenient, fast over long distances, affordable, comfortable and safe benefit not only passengers but the places they link up, providing more business investment, more residents—particularly in areas of declining population—and, in many places, more tourist spend.
More people travelling by rail reduces the number of cars on the roads. That then reduces congestion and associated air pollution. Walking or cycling to a station improves a person’s health, and they may be more likely to spend money during that short journey than if they were driving their own private car. Rail improvement, and investment in rail, benefits people and places.
As a London MP, I concur with colleagues’ anger at the disparity between transport infrastructure investment in London and in the other regions of the country. Why does that disparity exist? I accept that the way that the calculations are done exacerbates the inequality, but frankly that is a tool of a lack of policy. The disparity is a reaction to what always happens in mature economies when there is no effective regional economic policy: the inevitable growth of population and jobs in the largest city.
The main justification for investment in Crossrail, and the longer trains and platform extensions in other rail services in and around London, is that it is a reaction to population growth in and around London. Any economist will say that unless a country has an effective, long-term regional policy, there will be an increasing suck of investment and people towards the capital.
Against that, in some outlying areas in further regions—particularly, as a colleague said yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions, in the north-east—there are some ex-colliery towns where houses are lying empty. An effective regional policy would address that imbalance, which disadvantages both types of area.
The lack of regional policy, and continuous sucking into London of people and investment without any rebalancing, means that in the capital housing is overcrowded and prices are exorbitant—way beyond our children’s ability to rent, let alone buy their own homes. Of course, there is also overcrowding in our transport system.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as a London-based MP, for her support for a sane, sensible and fair regional policy. Does she agree that not only is the unfairness a factor, but that repeated investment in London to solve transport problems is counterproductive? Investment in transport has an economic effect: it creates more jobs, more people and more pressure on housing. Investing in that way is therefore effectively investing in future congestion.
Ruth Cadbury
I absolutely agree. That is the other side of the coin, and it can be addressed only by a proper, serious regional policy. Since 2010, the Government have moved far away from the regional policies that we had, completely decimating the regional economic development boards, and so forth.
The only nod to a regional policy that we have had in recent years is the northern powerhouse. I have heard again and again what a token gesture the northern powerhouse has been. Even the original promises have gradually been whittled away. We have nothing more than tokenism on regional policy in this country at the moment. As the Transport Committee Chair said in the report, regional transport authorities say that
“systems of scheme appraisal currently work against regions”.
In a sense, the state is exacerbating the natural pressure that always occurs without any sort of state intervention.
Market-led proposals are inadequate to deliver new projects—we see that failure around Heathrow airport. The roads around Heathrow airport, and I do not just mean in west London, but across the Thames valley, Buckinghamshire, from Surrey almost to Hertfordshire, and in the whole sub-region surrounding Heathrow airport, have some of the worst traffic in the world. The roads are dangerously overcrowded, with levels of pollution that are illegal, because we increasingly recognise air pollution as a serious health hazard. It is an economic brake on not only businesses that service Heathrow airport but the wider west London and Thames valley region. Unnecessary congestion helps no one.
In 2001, the planning inspector for the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry said that additional rail capacity was needed. Subsequently, in the run-up to the investigation into whether there was a justification for runway 3 at Heathrow, the national policy statement said that expansion would require 50% of passengers to use public transport by 2030, rising to 55% by 2040, and 25% fewer staff car trips to work by 2030, rising to 50% fewer by 2040.
The airport policy statement said that the Government expected Heathrow to meet its public pledge to have “no greater” airport-related road traffic. Of course, since then Heathrow airport has said that it wants to double its amount of cargo traffic, yet it has not provided any explanation. If that is not additional pressure on already dangerously overcrowded motorways down to local roads I do not know what is.
Heathrow airport has made it clear that it will not fund additional rail infrastructure, except for possibly a platform or something. Network Rail says:
“Existing connectivity to Heathrow Airport from the south is currently poor, with most people choosing to drive or get a taxi.”
When we were dealing with the implications of a fifth terminal when I was on Hounslow Council we looked, with a range of economic organisations around Heathrow and local authorities, at a scheme to bring in rail from the south and south-west called Airtrack. Meanwhile, colleagues to the west of Heathrow, particularly in Reading, Slough and so on, were looking at a new western rail extension, with the support of the Department for Transport.
Certainly the link from the west was going well, and was a stage ahead of the southern rail access, but last year or the year before everything ground to a halt as the Department for Transport announced that it wanted to let the private sector lead. As the Transport Committee has said, that has just not delivered. We have had a six-month or a year’s hiatus on the rail infrastructure that is needed in and around Heathrow, yet nothing is happening because the private sector—quite understandably—expects the Government to direct those new roads.
Now, the Government are not going to pay for it, and Heathrow is not going to pay for it. Who is, apart from the businesses and people who depend on a smooth-running road system—and the passengers, of course, who will miss their planes because they are stuck in traffic jams? Before the Minister says, “Oh, stop worrying—we are getting Crossrail and HS2 and so on,” let me remind him that Crossrail and the improvements on the Piccadilly line are to deal with existing transport pressures and the existing population increase in west London and the Thames valley. In terms of runway 3, the modal shift of Heathrow passengers on to existing and imminent transport methods will actually be very small. The Minister will know that if he has looked at the documents that were considered by the Transport Committee in its inquiry on the airports national policy statement. We are in a complete mess with rail investment in and around Heathrow, notwithstanding the fact that expansion at Heathrow —as, again, the Department for Transport’s own reports say—actually damages other regions’ connectivity with international destinations and their businesses and customers.
I want to move on briefly to my concern about the Department for Transport’s interference in transport in London. As anybody knows, and as most other major competitive cities do, a very large conurbation needs to be able to link up public transport, walking and cycling under a single management. I think the Government recognise that. Several Mayors, including the Mayor of the Greater Manchester region and others, have said that there should be greater devolution and control over rail policy, and so has every Mayor of London. But in London, and London alone, the Transport Secretary has openly said that he would block devolution of rail policy purely because he did not want a Labour Mayor to have control over it. He implied that if there were another Conservative Mayor after the first Conservative Mayor of London, he might have considered handing over rail responsibilities, but he was not prepared to do so. That blocking of devolution was so shocking that even the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said that the Transport Secretary was not fit to hold office. We have real concerns that where there are opportunities to use imaginative forms of additional investment in rail in London, that option is currently blocked to London and Londoners, and to London’s economy and that of the wider area.
I have touched on regional policy and the particular situation in London and at Heathrow. In my view, transport policy, of which rail is a part, should be a servant, not a driver, of other policies. I may be going beyond the remit of the report today, but it strikes me that we cannot discuss regional imbalance in rail infrastructure, or whether the decision making is at a local or national level, or whether the cost falls on the private sector investor or the passenger, without addressing the overarching issue of Government investment in the transport infrastructure, and rail in particular.
Is the funding from Government for such an important driver of the national economy and the environment enough, or even comparable with other equivalent economies? I suspect it is not, and I definitely think it is not enough. Are passengers paying too much of the cost of running rail? I believe they are. An efficient, affordable, reliable rail service drives economic growth and regeneration, cuts carbon and pollution emissions and enhances the international image of a country.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this debate through the Liaison Committee. I also congratulate her and the whole of the Transport Committee on the excellent report that we are considering today. I intend to focus my remarks on section 3 of that report, which concerns regional disparities in rail investment and their effect on economic rebalancing. I will also touch on the section relating to the next rail investment control period.
It has been a bad year for our railways in many respects. Along with other hon. Members, I recently took part in a debate on rail services in Yorkshire. The unanimous conclusion of those who took part in that debate was that passengers had been badly let down in recent months. Of course, a large part of that disruption was due to the timetable change introduced last May, but I am also convinced that historic and continuing under-investment in our regional railway infrastructure is a major cause of passenger dissatisfaction.
The report makes it clear that regions outside London and the south-east have not received a fair share of rail investment for years. That is especially true across the north of England. There has been persistent, long-standing underfunding of transport infrastructure in our region, which figures from IPPR North repeatedly show. Over the past few years, London has seen a £326 per-person increase in public spending, while the north has seen an increase of less than half the size—of just £146. Transport spending per person remains approximately twice as high in London as in the north, as it has been for the past decade. There are also significant disparities within the north. Last year, the north-west saw an average increase of £158 per person in transport spending, and yet spending in Yorkshire and the Humber fell by £18 per person—more than any other region.
As the report shows, this historic unfairness is set to continue. Analysis of the infrastructure and construction pipeline shows a stark gap between London and the rest of the country. In future spending, £1,900 per person is planned in London from 2017 onwards, compared with £400 per person in the north. The Secretary of State has attempted to brush aside that analysis, but it is clear that significant disparities are set to continue unless decisive Government action is taken.
The report also correctly describes why this regional funding gap persists. The current transport scheme appraisal method used by the Department for Transport and the Treasury will always favour London, as it prioritises congestion reduction and journey-time savings. That approach actively disadvantages less economically buoyant regions, and it must change.
I cautiously welcome the Government’s rebalancing toolkit, but it is nowhere near enough. It is also disappointing that the Government have not listened to calls to make the toolkit mandatory. Regional rebalancing must not be an optional extra, but should be at the heart of any transport investment decision making. For that to happen, the Government must commit to wholly revising the way that rail investment decisions are made. I urge the Minister to work with colleagues in the Treasury to revise the investment decision-making process so that places that have had a legacy of under-investment are treated more fairly in the future, which means putting economic regeneration and regional rebalancing front and centre.
As the Committees argue elsewhere in the report, past difficulties in delivering infrastructure projects must not discourage future investment. Areas that have seen a legacy of under-investment urgently need the projects to go ahead, so as we look to the next control period, the Government must make investing in regional rail infrastructure a priority.
I turn to Northern Powerhouse Rail. Bradford, like other towns and cities across the north, urgently needs that high-speed rail link to meet growing demand and to fulfil our economic potential, and investment in NPR should include a Bradford stop in the city centre, where the benefits will be felt by the greatest number of people. The Minister may recall from our conversation his supportive disposition to a Bradford stop on the NPR line. I must re-emphasise in the strongest possible terms the importance of that being a city centre station. The city of Bradford’s rail connections already operate under the disjointed legacy of two stations; adding a third station outside the city centre risks repeating the mistakes of the past. To be plain, a parkway station for the NPR outside the city centre would deliver neither the connectivity nor the economic regeneration that the city needs. It would represent an enormous missed opportunity. Independent research indicates that a Bradford city centre station would cut journey times and increase capacity. More importantly, it would add £15.5 billion to the north’s economy and generate an additional 15,000 full-time jobs across the Leeds city region.
NPR is the future we need, but more must be done right now to improve the punctuality and reliability of existing services and to banish outdated rolling stock. In West Yorkshire the public performance measure for rail operators, which combines figures for punctuality and reliability as a single measure, paints a depressing picture of almost universal decline in 2018-19, compared with the previous year. Performance on the Calder Valley line, which has a station stop in my constituency, was significantly worse than the year before. In some months, performance was almost 30% worse.
The train operator Northern recently admitted that it has not yet begun withdrawing the despised Pacer trains, which helps to illustrate the point further. As everybody knows, they are basically a 1980s bus body on rails. The firm blamed last year’s delays on electrification work, which contributed to the timetable and service chaos in May 2018. That is simply not good enough for my constituents or for businesses based in my constituency of Bradford South.
The Transport Committee’s report must be a wake-up call to the Government. We need action to rebalance our economy, boost our regions and give places such as Bradford the transport infrastructure that is fit for the next century.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate the chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), on its detailed report and on the hard work that she puts into that brief. She is what we call in Greater Manchester a grafter—where I come from, there is no higher praise than that.
Transport is really important but does not act in isolation. There is an ecosystem that supports the society, community and local economy. It has been well trailed, but we have not seen any meaningful action on even beginning to address the regional imbalances in investment that have been well rehearsed in this place. It would be good to hear from the Minister about the practical steps being taken to invest outside London and the south-east.
We are told by the Library that overall investment in transport in London over the past five years was £33.4 billion, taking 27.6% of total transport investment. In the north-west it was £11.1 billion, taking 9.2% of the total; in the north-east it was £3.3 billion, or 2.7% of the overall transport spend. Looking specifically at rail, the gap becomes even wider. London gets 42.8% of rail investment, the north-west 9.4% and the north-east just 2%. How can that be justified, even with the difference in population? Given that the regions outside London and the south-east are seriously disadvantaged by Government investment, are we surprised that they are not realising their full potential?
The Library briefing makes it clear that the figures for the north-west and the midlands are temporarily inflated due to some of the early work on HS2. Geographical work tied to a region has been included, but the wider cost of HS2 has been pulled out of the figures, so it appears that the north-west and the midlands receive more through that project than they actually do. London is getting about half of the transport spend. How can that be right or fair, and how can it deliver a balanced UK economy in which every community can thrive?
I know Members here today are aware that there is a world of difference between our big cities and their surrounding towns. There are even bigger differences between the towns and the villages and districts. When we look at the transport ecosystem, it is really important that we are not just discounting. London is a benchmark and we discount for the cities, towns and communities, which means that most people in this country are poorly served by a transport system that does not work in the way it ought to.
We are not calling for any more or less than our fair share. I do not mind if London continues to receive the money that it has received for generations. I am not resentful if the forward view means that that continues, but I demand the same for my community. If the money can be found for London, it ought to be found for the north-west region, too—no more, but certainly no less.
We have heard about the cancellation of the electrification project in July 2017, when it was described as no longer affordable. We have seen timetable cancellations: there were a staggering 470 cancellations every single day in the summer of 2018. The Office of Rail and Road’s review concluded that that was partly due to the lack of clarity on who was responsible for what. There was mass confusion in the industry, and the Transport Secretary’s response was simply, “Well, I don’t run the trains.” If we have a Transport Secretary who refuses to acknowledge his own role in running the trains in this country and to have political accountability for that, it is little wonder that the operators get away with what they are doing. There is just no accountability, which for my community means that Northern continues to provide a completely sub-standard service on a daily basis. It not only botched the introduction of the new timetable; but is in constant disputes with staff who are at their wits’ end with the management and the way they are being treated.
The latest action is on whether carriages should have guards. People in Greater Manchester might think, “Well, even if there are no guards, we just hope there are some carriages”, because 11% of train journeys are shorted, which means that they do not have enough carriages to meet the demand from commuters. Some 5,500 journeys did not have the capacity to meet passenger demand. What is the answer? In the north-west, we have been sent trains that even the Iranian Government have decided are not fit for purpose. We have been sent more Pacer trains—from the north-east to the north-west—to make up for the fact that we have passengers who wait on platforms, without enough carriages to service them, in order to get to work and get their children to school. How can that be right? The trains were built in the 1980s and were always intended to have a shelf-life of about 20 years. They were a pragmatic and affordable way to get new stock on the lines, but they were never intended to be on the lines nearly 30 years on. That just cannot be right.
Passengers face a 3.1% increase in fares—the largest increase over the past six years—while shareholders continue to profit from a sub-standard service. We know that the Conservatives do not believe in nationalisation. Well, they do—provided it is another nation that runs our trains. Deutsche Bank, which owns and operates the trains in the north-west of England and serves Greater Manchester, is not providing an adequate service; it is making profit from that contract. Where is the accountability? We have a Transport Secretary who says, “It’s nothing to do with me, guv.” We have an operator that is taking money and creaming off the top while services are not running on time. They do not run at all in some cases—when they do turn up, often it is not possible to get on because there are not enough carriages. If the operator gets its way, pretty soon there will be no guards on carriages, and people will not feel safe. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has made it very clear that that is just not on, and he would not be comfortable with that. The truth is that it is a very raw deal.
I will talk about the wider transport ecosystem. We need to bear in mind that it is not just rail that has been hit by poor service. When the Pacer trains were brought in for their 20-year life—nearly 30 years ago now—bus travel was commonplace. It still is, but there are now 140 million fewer bus journeys in Greater Manchester than there were 30 years ago. That is a 40% decline in bus use in Greater Manchester. Why? Because there are 40 operators in Greater Manchester—we are desperately trying to get franchising off the ground, but the Government are not providing the investment required to get through the legal process and produce the business case—all with different ticketing systems, and all deciding where they are willing to operate.
Oxford Road—the university corridor in Greater Manchester—is one of the busiest bus routes in Europe, and one of the cheapest. One of the most affluent parts of Greater Manchester—the south—is the cheapest place to catch a bus. In the north, which is generally the poorer part, the fares can be 40% higher. Often the poorer a person is—depending on where they live and where the operators choose to operate from—the more they pay just to get to work. That, by the way, is if there is a bus that goes where they need to go at the time when they need to get there. Shift workers in Greater Manchester might as well give up on the buses, because they cannot get to most big employment sites, such as Manchester airport or Trafford Park, to meet shift-work patterns.
The ecosystem has been completely torn apart. Operators pick and choose what they are willing to do, the taxpayer is desperately trying to plug the gap but it is nowhere near enough, and the number of bus journeys is falling. Year after year, we see subsidised routes taken away because the money does not stretch far enough, and the same is happening with rail.
It is a raw deal for taxpayers, passengers and, critically—this is really important when we are talking about a future Britain beyond Brexit—the future of our economy. After Brexit, the country will be hugely vulnerable to the danger of financial services and the insurance market deciding to relocate and basing themselves elsewhere in Europe. That will expose how lazy this country has been in addressing the underperformance in our regions. We have relied on the City of London to keep the UK economy going, and that has allowed us to ignore the hollowing out of the economies in the regions. Transport is a key part of that. We know that investment in transport leads to growth and jobs and creates a more vibrant economy. People live better lives and can access job opportunities that they might not have been able to access previously. We need more action and Government spending.
There are different views on HS2. I am a supporter, partly because it is investment in the north, so why would we not support it? However, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is already issuing calls for a zero-sum review of capital spend projects such as HS2. I put this down as a marker: the Government may believe that, because it is not in London or the south-east, it is an easy target to be deleted, but we are watching it very carefully. It is critical that we ensure that the UK can perform to its full potential. The routes and investment beyond HS2 to ensure that the north of England is connected are absolutely critical, too.
Lilian Greenwood
I wholeheartedly endorse my hon. Friend’s concerns about future investment in HS2. There are good reasons to be concerned. When the transpennine route upgrade was firmly committed to in 2015, the DFT promised that, when the work was finished, the whole route from Liverpool to Newcastle, via Manchester, Leeds and York, would be fully electrified. The recent letter from Transport for the North’s chief executive board members reported that the DFT’s plans leave a crucial part of that route unelectrified—a gap of 18 miles in the 183-mile route. Does my hon. Friend agree that the failure to electrify that 10% will mean worse reliability and higher operating costs in the north for years to come?
Jim McMahon
I generally think that, with these types of capital project, once the decision to invest is made, the investment has to be seen through, because the full potential of the investment is only realised when it is done to the quality, standard and specification that was set out originally. When things are chipped away towards the end of a project, it is inevitable that the full advantage and economic return on the investment will not be realised, and the original investment will be compromised.
It is critical that the Government take a long-term view. There is far too much short-termism. They are looking to the next election, the next target seat and where their core vote is, rather than to what the structure of our economy will be in the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Greater Manchester is trying to look ahead with its 2040 strategy, but it is very difficult to do that if it does not know what funding is coming down the pipeline. We can decide what is important for our regions, but the way the Government invest makes it very difficult for our regions to plan ahead and ensure they have a joined-up transport strategy. It also makes it very difficult for UK manufacturers and engineering companies to bid for that work and plan ahead, because they do not have a forward programme that they can organise and work towards. I speak to many manufacturers in my constituency. In Oldham, they have contracts with Transport for London and the German Government, but they say consistently that it is very difficult to get a contract with the UK Government. Part of the reason why the Elizabeth Tower is shrouded in steel from all over the world, apart from Britain, is that it is easier for other countries to get contracts from our Government.
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is making a very strong case for investment and economic growth in the regions. I agree completely that this is about long-termism. The Minister obviously heard my comments earlier. Part of the reason why the Great Eastern main line taskforce has been pretty robust in our representations is that we have been working with businesses and local enterprise partnerships. We are giving businesses the opportunity to put the long-term case to the Government. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that other regions should replicate that?
Jim McMahon
I agree with that approach. It is important that we have an economic view and can demonstrate the wider economic advantage and growth. Transport for the North is working to that end, and has built very good partnerships. It generally has a good relationship with the Government, although there are constant demands for the Government to plan further ahead and be more committed to finding resources. That partnership approach is extremely important.
This has been a good debate. I welcome the Select Committee’s report, because it is important that we shine a light on these issues. As a north-west MP, I thank the Committee members for this piece of work. MPs outside London will, for a period, continue to ask politely for our fair share. We have been doing that for quite a long time now, but the noise will get louder. If the Government are determined to look beyond Brexit and build a Britain that can thrive, they will have to put their hand in their pocket and ensure that every region in the UK gets its fair share.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and to sum up the debate on behalf of the Scottish National party. At a momentous political time, such as we have experienced this week, it is easy to forget about the many Government portfolios that require attention and scrutiny. Brexit may be dominating the headlines and the levers of government, but it should not be used as an excuse to sweep all other policy issues under the rug. It has therefore been helpful to hear hon. Members’ contributions, which I shall refer to throughout my speech.
A common theme in this debate, the Transport Committee’s report and wider political reporting is a clear concern about the Department for Transport’s handling of the rail network. The report highlights concerns about the boom and bust investment cycles, and the failure to give the industry sufficient confidence to invest in its workforce, skills and innovation. Other evidence gathered by the Committee cast doubt on the Rail Minister’s understanding of how and where emerging technology, such as battery-powered trains, is being developed. Perhaps it is forgivable for a Minister not to have a comprehensive understanding of absolutely everything covered by their Department, but it will not reassure those asking serious questions of the Department for Transport and Network Rail.
[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]
Certainly, the headlines will not comfort the UK Government. With news outlets talking about meltdown, appalling services and chaos, it is clear that the rail network in England is failing at the most fundamental level. Of particular interest to me—this was mentioned throughout the debate—is the disparity in transport expenditure across the UK. Unsurprisingly, the Committee’s report noted that there is a massive disparity between rail investment in London and other parts of England. Although we should consider the difficulties in accurately breaking down regional funding, we cannot ignore the problematic London-centric nature of funding in the UK. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that railway spending per capita in England was up to 10 times higher in London than in other English regions. If I were a resident of the east midlands or of Yorkshire, I would ask serious questions about the levels of funding in my area.
Transport bodies in London and the UK Government will attempt to rationalise—or even justify—those disparities, but the Department for Transport’s introduction of a rebalancing toolkit is a clear acknowledgment of the problem. Thankfully, in Scotland we have the Scottish Government to act in our interests. It will come as no surprise that SNP MPs support the Scottish Government’s call for Network Rail to be fully devolved. Research commissioned by Abellio in 2018 found that just 30% of people support the current arrangement, with a majority supporting the full devolution of Network Rail. I also welcome the proposals from Reform Scotland and the former Labour Transport Minister, Tom Harris, for Network Rail to be fully accountable to the Scottish Government. That is a common-sense approach.
I would argue that it is completely logical to devolve those powers fully, given the Scottish Government’s existing transport responsibilities. That case has been repeatedly made to the UK Government and has been repeatedly ignored. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Transport said on record that he does not believe that
“the Scottish Government are capable of overseeing it properly.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 291.]
That is certainly a bold claim in the light of his Department’s well-documented failings.
Passengers can become frustrated when their rail service does not operate as expected. In Scotland, people often become angry at ScotRail and the Scottish Government for problems that arise from Network Rail’s infrastructure—a UK Government responsibility— and given the tangle of responsibilities between devolved and reserved matters, that is an understandable confusion. The devolution of Network Rail’s activities in Scotland would therefore improve accountability and allow the Scottish Government to build on the action that has already been taken to improve services.
There has been significant Scottish Government investment in the ScotRail franchise for the benefit of rail users. There will be a 23% increase in seating capacity and more than 200 new services across Scotland by the end of 2019. The Scottish Government will continue to invest £1 billion in public transport every year. According to the latest figures, that support means ScotRail’s performance measure has been higher than the UK average. Importantly, the Scottish Government will use powers from the Scotland Act 2016 to allow a public sector bid for all franchises in Scotland. The facilitation of such bids ensures that the Scottish National party will deliver what was promised: a robust public sector bid for the ScotRail franchise.
In closing, I believe that the Transport Committee’s report should form part of a wider review of the rail network, and the SNP welcomes the long overdue acceptance by the UK Government that a review is necessary. The Department for Transport must commit to implementing any future recommendations. I hope that the Minister can assure me that the UK Government are serious about their decentralisation agenda. If they are, I would be grateful to him if he outlined what discussions he plans to have with his Scottish Government counterpart, particularly in the light of polling that shows widespread support for the devolution of Network Rail.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The debate has been excellent. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and to all members of the Select Committee for the excellent work done to pull the report together. We all really value the detail that the report brings to the fore. I certainly concur with all that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said about how important it is to get our infrastructure right and for the governance of our rail structure to be in the right place.
Clearly, there are lots of question marks over the current system, and that was really brought to the fore as a result of control period 5, where costs ran away with themselves and we saw the rescheduling of work. In fact, £3 billion-worth of renewals—let alone enhancement programmes—will be pushed into the next control period. We clearly need better governance of our system.
As hon. Members will recall, it was most astounding when the Government cancelled crucial electrification programmes as Parliament rose for the summer recess of 2017. The Oxenholme to Windermere line subsequently had a heritage railway running on it that summer just so trains could travel to the Lake district at the peak of the season—a vital part of the tourism industry. The Kettering to Sheffield stretch—the midland main line—was subject to a de-electrification announcement. Other programmes were cancelled, such as the Cardiff to Swansea line—it is absolutely vital to Swansea’s economy that power is put into those lines—and, of course, we have heard much about the transpennine route, which has been further downgraded since, meaning a downgrade of a downgrade. The crucial part of that line, between Huddersfield and Stalybridge, will not see electrification. The route will therefore not be fit for future freight, which is vital; journey times will be compromised; and reliability will be downgraded. That is crucial, especially in the light of the pain people experienced last summer on those lines. I urge the Minister to complete the whole transpennine upgrade and control period 6 programme, as has been advised by Transport for the North. That will be a game-changer for the northern economy.
The only thing that has been guaranteed is more capacity in the rolling stock, but of course, with dirty diesel bi-mode trains. It is time that we moved to using cleaner forms of transport. The Transport Committee certainly drew out the importance of that, and of the whole electrification programme and the digital rail opportunities that it would bring, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) also highlighted.
We have seen the reality of where lumpy, boom-and-bust scheduling leads: additional costs to the rail industry. Skills and jobs have been lost as a result of those peaks and troughs in the way that rail work has been scheduled. The Railway Industry Association highlighted in particular that a 30% saving could be made if costs and the scheduling of work were smooth. That benefits passengers with regard to the price that they pay for travel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) brought to our attention. It is absolutely crucial, therefore, that lessons are learned and that there is a smoothing of scheduling as we move into control period 6. Our proposals for the railway would see a longer-term smoothing of scheduled work, which would fit in with the growth of the economy—as so many hon. Members have highlighted, our transport system interweaves with future economic opportunity.
We have heard about the inequality and the regional disparity across our network. If we are serious about communities outside London—the further north we head, the less spending there seems to be on our railway, which is reflected by the number of people who are able to use it—it is absolutely crucial that we get the rebalancing toolkit right, and that we ensure that it is mandatory and fully utilised, to the advantage of all communities across our country. The northern powerhouse and the links between Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield present a real opportunity to boost the economy of the north, and everything that will swing from that would be such an improvement of people’s lives and social mobility, which is why we want proper rebalancing as we move forward. Hon. Members have drawn attention to that, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) in his powerful contribution.
As we bring the programmes together, we need to ensure that we bring track and train together and move the silos of discussions into one integrated place, because not doing that and the changing of mind on programmes led to the catastrophic failure in the timetable that so many passengers faced in the summer. We have read the Glaister report on the impact of what happened, but we must learn lessons, and attitudes at the heart of Government must change. There must be greater accountability and the Secretary of State must take full responsibility as we move forward to enhance our railway system.
I want to draw out one or two other points in the Select Committee report that are crucial as we look to the future of rail. First, we must ensure that we prioritise cleaner technologies in our rail enhancement programmes. We have real opportunities, but we are falling behind other nations. We must ensure that we put the environmental impact of our transport system at the heart of decision making. Transport accounts for 29% of carbon use in our country, so it will be the game-changer as we move towards ensuring a reduction in emissions. It is absolutely imperative that we have carbon budgeting across our transport system. That issue was raised in the report, but the Government response was dismissive, so it is crucial that we continue to press the issue.
Secondly, I am deeply concerned about the skills needed to deliver all that is contained within this excellent report. I ask the Chair of the Select Committee and the Minister to reflect on skills. Not only with Brexit, but with an ageing demographic across the rail industry workforce, we face real issues and challenges: we are on a cliff-edge of skills. I ask the Minister exactly what is being done to ensure that we have the opportunity to expand our railway, as we know we must.
We have heard this afternoon from hon. Members from across the regions. The opportunities for our railways are there to be grasped, whether it is putting in the full Crossrail programme for the north, or investment in the eastern region, as the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) highlighted, or making greater transport connections into Heathrow, or, although not represented today, implementing the peninsula programme in the south-west. We must ensure good connectivity, which is absolutely vital, and sustained investment work all joined together.
I think these are really exciting times for the future of rail, as we move forward. Certainly I look forward—it may be very soon—to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) becoming the next Secretary of State for Transport. We have spent so much time with the industry. We have done the work. We do know what is needed. We will radically change the way that our rail system operates, for the benefit of all those who use it.
I thank the Transport Committee once more for its work and its ongoing focus in holding the Government to account over the way that rail is advanced in our country. Governance is absolutely crucial if we are to ensure that we have value for money, deliver for passengers and ultimately have a system that makes our economy strong yet again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for her work as Chair of the Transport Committee and for her work in producing this report. I also thank her and other members of the Committee for the broader work that they do. I look forward to working with all of them over the months ahead.
I echo the words the hon. Lady started with on the importance of the rail industry to the UK economy. The Government fully recognise the importance of our nation’s infrastructure, and at its heart is our rail network. That is why we are investing record levels of rail funding—around £48 billion in the next control period between 2019 and 2024—in modernising our railway and giving passengers the reliable and punctual services they deserve. Our investment in vital railway works is aimed at what will improve performance for passengers and ensure safety and reliability. The operation, maintenance and renewal of the railway will help ensure smooth operation of the network. Our investment across the country, such as the £2.9 billion transpennine route upgrade, which I will talk about later; the ambitious works at Derby to modernise and improve the points and track there, completed on schedule in October; and the wider commitments, including dedicated funding for further improvements for freight and accessibility in the next investment period—all demonstrate how we are meeting the needs of passengers and freight users on our network.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) mentioned fares. I am happy to point out that we are in the sixth year of capping regulated fare rises in line with inflation, and we are introducing new railcards so that anyone up to the age of 30 will have access to discounted rail fares. Our franchises support the introduction of record levels of private investment in the railway, including brand-new trains across the network.
The Labour party talks regularly about how the benefits of nationalisation will be cost-free, but the benefits of privatisation have brought investment, and nothing is more obvious than the arrival of the new rolling stock. We will see 7,000 new carriages enter service on our network over the next couple of years. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) mentioned Pacer trains, and they will go this year as part of the renewal of rolling stock. It is worth pointing out that the rail franchise that dominated the north, including his and my area, was let in 2004 and expired only in 2016, and it was a no-growth franchise.
Rachael Maskell
Yes, I will grant the Minister that. Does he not recognise that the private sector is not investing in rolling stock? It leases the rolling stock off companies and so the amount paid has a massive premium—about a third more, as found out by Merseyrail, which has now purchased its own rolling stock.
Andrew Jones
How individual operating companies wish to own and run their rolling stock is up to them, but the point is that private investment and the private sector, whether it pays for a lease or for ownership, is delivering, and the public sector did not, which is why we have the long-standing Pacer trains on our network. The no-growth franchise was a significant feature. I am sure that those who let that now think that that was a mistake, because of course we have had significant growth in the north and we are playing catch-up.
It is fair to say that we had a difficult year on our rail network in 2018, as many colleagues here have said. We all know that performance declined, never more so than around the introduction of the timetable in May. But it is also fair to say that we have seen a doubling of passengers across our rail network over the past 20 or so years, which shows it is a ringing success, demonstrating the success of the public and private sectors working together to deliver significant and sustained improvement.
Jim McMahon
I accept that passenger numbers have increased, but the truth is that the summer delays and the autumn cancellations were not a surprise. The timetabling was agreed by Northern. It designed it, crafted it and failed to implement it properly. The delays in the autumn were down to autumnal weather, which obviously takes everybody by surprise. It is not as though it happens every year when leaves come off the trees and fall on tracks. The basic management is poor, and surely not fit for purpose.
Andrew Jones
We have had autumn leaves falling since time began, and whichever rail company has been operating—including nationalised ones—they have found them quite difficult to manage. To suggest that it is suddenly a bigger problem is a mistake.
Priti Patel
The Minister is incredibly generous in giving way, and I thank him. Delays are the scourge of commuters on the country’s train network, and of course they all get upset when trains are cancelled or delayed. Is there more the Minister can do to hold franchisee companies to account, with respect to how they communicate with customers and give compensation to rail users?
Andrew Jones
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She gave a powerful speech, which recognised how transport investment, alongside other investments, can drive an economy. The work that she and colleagues have done on producing a business case has been highly effective. She asked whether I would work with her and of course I will, as I will work with all colleagues, to maximise the benefits of the rail investment we are putting in. As to communication, rail companies can do more. We should be looking at all digital and other means of communicating with customers to keep them informed. There are mechanisms through the franchise agreement for keeping the companies accountable. However, I also regularly meet the Rail Delivery Group, and through those and other regular meetings, with individual operating companies, I have already highlighted the issue of communication with their customers. I will continue to do so, but my right hon. Friend is right that there must be improvement on that.
I was saying a few things about how our network has played a role in the increasing economic growth of the past few years, and how that combination of the public and private sectors, working together, has delivered improvement. That includes private sector skills driving investment for passengers and rail freight. However, that success has also resulted in challenges. We have been open about facing such challenges, including in our programme of infrastructure works in the current investment period, and in the rail structures we inherited. That was very clear and it is why we have taken action and changed our approach. The work of the Select Committee has been very helpful in that respect.
In March 2018 we published our new approach to rail enhancements, called the “Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline: A New Approach for Rail Enhancements”. We have a knack of creating very difficult-to-say acronyms. In September the Secretary of State announced that he had appointed Keith Williams, a respected industry figure. He has expertise in driving customer service excellence, and therefore he is incredibly valuable as we seek to reform the rail industry to become more passenger-focused, and to lead a root and branch review of the railway. The Government’s new approach to enhancements has, as Members will be aware, been a key focus for the Transport Committee. The Williams review is a really exciting moment for our industry. The structures that we have had have helped to turn around decades of decline. We have gone from many years of decline to rapid growth. As many people now use the rail network as did in the 1920s—with all the challenges that come with that, which I shall come on to. The structure has helped to achieve the growth, but it is not clear to me that it will help us take things forward for the next stage. That is what Mr Williams has been asked to consider, and it is an interesting prospect.
The approach being taken learns lessons from CP5, responding to the recommendations of the Bowe review. It is quite profound. We are replacing a once-in-five-years plan with a rolling pipeline of investment, which was a key recommendation of the Committee. I can entirely see why both the review and the Committee made that recommendation. We will be able to respond flexibly to changes in circumstances, and emerging priorities. Unlike in CP5 where certainty—I know we have talked about it—often turned out to be frankly illusory, the supply chain can be confident that once we have made a decision we will stick to it. Those concerned will know exactly how far the commitment extends, for funding and delivery. I completely agree with the principle of transparency to help people plan accordingly. We shall be transparent about the progress of individual schemes as they move through the pipeline, and throughout the control period, but the point is that we are not simply making one announcement at the start of a cycle.
The RNEP has five stages, through which enhancement schemes move from concept to delivery, with increasing levels of detail and development required at each stage. We call them “determine”, “develop”, “design”, “deliver” and “deploy”. A theme runs through them, from “determine”, where the opportunity is identified, to “deliver”, where the solution is provided. Not all projects will progress through all the stages. Each stage is preceded by a decision point, where we will decide whether the scheme is ready to advance to the next stage, whether more work is needed, or whether there is a better way of achieving things. We commit to progress only to the next stage—not all the way to completion.
Lilian Greenwood
I completely understand the point that just because something enters the enhancements pipeline that does not mean it will reach the end. That depends on its progressing through the gateways. However, I should be grateful if the Minister set out clearly which parts of the enhancements pipeline will be transparent to the House and the wider industry. Will we know what things are in all the stages, or will we know only about the latter stages, once something has been committed to delivery? It would help us if we could be clear on that point.
Andrew Jones
My intention is that we should be as transparent as we can without giving a running commentary on schemes that also present challenges in the managing of expectation. I intend to be transparent about progress as they move through the pipeline—in the phrase I just used—and that suggests each stage of the process.
Lilian Greenwood
So is the Minister saying that when something moves from one stage of the pipeline to another, there will be an announcement to let us know?
Andrew Jones
Yes, exactly. What form it will take I do not know, but as schemes progress through, from “determine” to “develop” and so on, we will be transparent about it.
The objective is to secure value for the taxpayer by progressing schemes only when we have an appropriate understanding of how much they will cost, how long they will take, and the benefits that will be delivered. That is in great contrast to CP5, where that did not happen.
Priti Patel
As the Minister will know, the Great Eastern main line taskforce is currently working to that very pipeline, for the next business case. Funding will be incredibly important for any project that enters the pipeline. I want to ask the Minister something on which I have previously pressed the Secretary of State. Will there be an opportunity to look at cross-Government funding that covers, for example, money from other budgets, such as local government and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy? As the Minister knows, the GEML case made in 2014, which will be made again, looked across at the economic benefits of rail investment, and considered economic growth, too. That effectively means that we must look at new funding mechanisms that go across the Treasury, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so that we bring the economic benefits that many colleagues have spoken about in the debate.
Andrew Jones
My right hon. Friend is as wise as ever. Once a Treasury Minister, always a Treasury Minister, I suspect. The point about bringing things together was, I think, at the heart of such things as the national productivity investment fund, which is about making sure we have, and control, the levers to drive economic productivity—productivity being at the heart of the UK’s future economic success. I see rail working alongside Departments to open up opportunity—commercial, residential, trade and so on. I see that future of collaboration as the way we will take forward some of our projects across the network.
Daniel Zeichner
In the interests of transparency, I am trying to understand the pipeline process. The Minister knows of the huge frustration in my region about the delays with the Ely junction. How do we find out where in the pipeline such a project stands now?
Andrew Jones
One simple way, of course, is to ask the Minister concerned. I will find out exactly where we are with the Ely junction and respond to the hon. Gentleman. Significant works are planned around Ely, but there are a number of junctions around Ely—I have reviewed a map of them in the past few weeks—and I will need to remind myself specifically which one that might be.
Let me go back to the changes to CP6 from CP5, which create a direct contrast. I think it is fair to say that in CP5 we overcommitted to projects at too early a stage, meaning that later we had to change the scope or cancel altogether, increasing the uncertainty and the impact on the industry’s ability to plan for investment and delivery. The RNEP sets out the Secretary of State’s four priorities for rail enhancements across the country, and we will not progress any enhancement that cannot clearly demonstrate how it meets at least one of them. It is important that those priorities remain applicable to the whole country so that the network can be improved fairly and as a whole.
I welcome the fact that the Transport Committee’s report shared a similar approach to our own in promoting engagement with third-party proposals for rail schemes. On 20 March last year the Department published its guidance for market-led proposals and launched a call for ideas for the same. That call for ideas ran between 31 May and 31 July last year. We received 30 responses. DFT officials have assessed all of them and will now work with promoters to move their schemes forward, although I stress that they will still be market-led. We will be transparent about schemes as and when they progress into the pipeline.
The question was whether this has stalled. No, it has not. We certainly want to see new entrants into the market and ideas being brought forward. I am absolutely clear that not all ideas to drive forward our network will come from SW1—that would be silly.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the Minister for confirming that 30 proposals were received by the Department. I know that he does not want to raise expectations or to give us too much information, but will he at least confirm how many of the proposals are being progressed? Of those 30, how many are the Department taking forward? When might we expect to hear more about which those are, and where in the country they might relate to?
Andrew Jones
I cannot remember off the top of my head. I looked at the schemes but cannot remember the answer. I will have to write to the hon. Lady with the details.
We spent a bit of time discussing electrification. The hon. Lady expressed some concern and asked whether we had ruled out electrification. Clearly the answer is no. Our railway infrastructure investment in CP6, however, is about securing positive outcomes, not necessarily specific outputs or inputs. We want to secure benefits for rail users and to do so in the best way possible, rather than simply building more railway for its own sake. Passengers expect high-quality rail services, and we are committed to electrification where it will deliver passenger benefits and value for money.
We will also take advantage of state-of-the-art new technology to improve journeys. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) talked about digital rail. Certainly, technology has a role to play. It is one of the exciting opportunities in the sector. We are already progressing a number of digital rail schemes, using the £450 million secured under the autumn statement 2016 to begin the roll-out of that vital technology. I agree with his points.
Our new approach is designed to provide the maximum possible certainty of investment and a sustainable pipeline for the supply chain. That will provide benefits balanced for the whole country. I met the Railway Industry Association and understand entirely its point about how unwelcome “boom and bust” is. One former Chancellor and Prime Minister talked about putting an end to boom and bust—I am not sure that he would use that phrase again—so I will be cautious in my language and instead say that we will smooth the pipeline of work so that the industry can plan appropriately—skill up and scale up.
However, I suggest that the industry should look at a £48 billion budget pipeline over the next five years and think, “Fantastic!” This Government are buying rail like no other Government in British history. We live in a bumper time for our railways, in terms of rolling stock investment, enhancements, new lines and maintenance. I would imagine—this is what we see—that a lot of people look at this and think, “I want to get some of the great work being done by the UK Government.”
Another aspect of technology to promote is how it can deliver outcomes. That includes the introduction of new bi-modal trains, which reduce disruption to passengers resulting from heavy infrastructure works. The new bi-modal trains are being delivered into service with Great Western, LNER and TransPennine, bringing modern traction technologies on to Britain’s railways.
We continue to promote the use of new technology across rail. Recent franchise competitions have included requirements for bidders to develop innovative solutions around rolling stock technology that will, among other things, reduce emissions on the network. I am keen to take forward the decarbonisation agenda, which the hon. Member for Nottingham South mentioned, and it remains an absolute priority. I will work with the industry and will publish that report—it cannot happen soon enough. I am talking about publication of the decarbon- isation report and about working with different types of traction, such as hydrogen-powered trains, which I have read about. I look at the opportunities that they present to improve air quality radically, and I think, “We want some of that in the UK.” It will certainly be a priority.
Lilian Greenwood
The Minister is being characteristically generous in taking interventions. I welcome the news that the decarbonisation report will be published. Will he clarify whether he has received that report from Malcolm Brown, the former CEO of Angel Trains? Will the Minister tell us a little about what is in it, or when he will share that information with us?
Andrew Jones
We have received a further draft within the past few days. It is not the absolutely final version of the report, but I understand that we are very near it. I hope to read it, but I think that I should read it when it is finished, rather than in draft form—to be fair to Mr Brown. As soon as we have more information, I will keep the hon. Lady posted.
Regional spend has been a concern in this debate and more broadly. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) kindly said that I was definitely listening—to confirm, I am definitely listening, and definitely Yorkshire. The Government are clear that there should be a balance of rail investment across the whole network, to the benefit of the whole country. The Government and the Select Committee alike agree that capital spending in one part of the network can deliver benefits further afield.
I must stress, however, that the Department for Transport does not allocate funding on the basis of per head of population. Our railway is a network, with spending in a particular area benefiting users up and down the country.
Jim McMahon
Does the Minister agree that part of the problem with how schemes are assessed is that heavy consideration is given to economic return or gross value added? A mile of track in London will therefore always deliver more economic return than a mile of track in Manchester, Wales, Scotland or anywhere else, simply because of that economic assessment. Surely, to rebalance the UK, there has to be a levelling up in addition to that economic criterion.
Andrew Jones
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and if that were the only consideration I can see how it could lead to inappropriate decisions, but that is not entirely the case. For example, the transpennine rail upgrade, which will be the biggest enhancement on our network over the next five years, would simply not be happening if we accepted his point. But I understand where he is coming from: we have to balance not only economic return and national efficiency, but the possible role in rebalancing our national geography. The lack of investment in some parts could easily be seen as a factor in economic performance.
Our decisions follow a rigorous and fair appraisal process that ensures spending goes to the projects and programmes where it is needed, delivering value for money for taxpayers and passengers. Sometimes that means that spending appears higher in some areas than in others. We cited various figures, but the numbers quoted are frequently from the IPPR. I have some reservations about the IPPR reporting, because it simply adds up future spending regardless of how far it extends. For example, its analysis includes 16 years of planned expenditure on HS2, where the most costly sections—because of land prices—are in London, but only five years of planned spending on maintenance for the other parts of our network. It includes locally funded spending by TfL, but not local, equivalently funded spending in other cities, which will result in a poor sample.
We look at data in a number of different ways. Investment in Birmingham, for example, could benefit users in Penzance, Edinburgh—anywhere across our network—and, of course, the west midlands. We look at two measures: where the investment is made and where the benefits will be felt. The numbers quoted so far on where spending is taking place largely have not taken into account where benefits are felt. However, spending figures going forward, as shown by the national infrastructure and construction pipeline, show that the Government expect to spend £248 per person in the north, compared with £236 in the south. There is an element of the phasing of schemes driving the individual spend in an area.
The rebalancing toolkit has been considered, which we have developed to support authors of strategic cases to assess how a programme or project fits with the objective of spreading growth around the country. I was asked whether it is being used. It is being used in the development of the transpennine rail upgrades and the Northern Powerhouse Rail business cases. The rebalancing toolkit is designed to help with the basic planning. It includes a checklist of questions to consider and potential evidence that can be used to help describe the rebalancing case for a project or programme in its strategic case. It is an ingredient. Does it need to be used in every single case? Given the amount of money we spend and the amount of time it takes us to plan our projects, I do not think it should be mandatory everywhere, but certainly it is an ingredient in making the right decisions. The toolkit’s objective is to make decision making more consistent by improving the focus, quality and transparency of the rebalancing evidence in the business case.
Let me answer some questions asked by colleagues. The transpennine rail upgrade offers the fantastic prospect of the north being the centrepiece of the next spending period. It is a £2.9 billion first phase of a scheme. Electrification will be a part of the proposals. It is phased to deliver the best benefits to passengers over the period. Freight will most certainly be considered; that is why we are also taking forward options for the development of the Skipton to Colne reconnection. It should be viewed as a phased activity.
The advice we have received from Network Rail is that if we spend any more money on that network during this period, with the amount of interventions required to deliver the schemes we will bring the northern rail network to a halt for just about every weekend over the next five years. We have taken the view that it would be an unacceptable price to pay, which would have a huge detrimental economic impact. We have listened to the industry experts and that is the advice they are giving us, so we are delivering this major project in phases. The criteria are about delivering the best benefits to passengers early, but our ambitions are not reduced at all.
Ruth Cadbury
Is it about merely measuring the benefit for the passengers? Are any other wider impacts assessed and measured, such as the impact on the environment and local areas, particularly where there are regeneration and economic development aspirations?
Andrew Jones
The wider considerations are taken into account. This is part of a broader plan. As the business case is created, it looks at economic benefits and environmental benefits. It is a wider case.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth asked about devolution. It is being considered as part of the Williams review, but the principle of devolution is a sound one. The suggestion that the Secretary of State is not supportive of Crossrail and the London Mayor is not correct. For example, TfL has run into some financial difficulties over the Crossrail cost overruns. We are helping it with a £2.1 billion credit facility, which it will pay back—it is a loan, not a grant. That is an important indication of how we are supportive of Crossrail and the London Mayor.
Rachael Maskell
I would like to return to the transpennine route. From meetings with officials, my understanding is that the challenge is not in the tunnel but across three bridges. For that reason, the electrification programme has not been advanced between Huddersfield and Stalybridge, which is the real game-changer. The challenge is also to make the necessary upgrades to accommodate future freight. Will the Minister assess the advice from Transport for the North to ensure that the proper full upgrade is brought to the line? It would have a significant impact on reliability and will drive efficiencies in the system.
Andrew Jones
I am very keen for that line to be upgraded and will ensure that all the opportunities to progress it are considered. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no loss of ambition, but at the same time we must be very careful when industry experts tell us that if we do any more we will bring the network to a halt for just about every weekend in five years. That is the advice from senior levels in Network Rail. On getting on with it, that cannot happen soon enough as far as I am concerned.
Lilian Greenwood
We still have 42 minutes left, but I do not anticipate that we will take that long. On the transpennine electrification, I accept the Minister’s point that we do not want excessive disruption, but will he accept that it is better to do the right thing, which will lead to cost-effective operations, environmental benefits and reliability benefits in the longer term, even if that sometimes means that delivery of the scheme will take longer? Will he commit to talk to Rail North about how the maximum benefits can be achieved in the long term, rather than a short-term approach that could bake in disbenefits over a very long period?
Andrew Jones
I will continue to talk with all the different bodies across the north to maximise the benefits. We are not taking a short-term approach; a short-term approach would be to get on and do it right away. We are taking the approach to deliver it in phases to maximise the benefits. At each stage we are also future-proofing it. That principle is already being implemented.
The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) talked about Northern Powerhouse Rail. I am also very keen for Bradford to be well served by that. Indeed, Transport for the North is developing the proposals for Northern Powerhouse Rail. That is great—it will be from the north, for the north. I went to Transport for the North’s last board meeting, at which I was going to receive the strategic outline business case. Transport for the North had to pull that business case at the last moment, but I will go up to its next board meeting; I do not criticise it in the slightest for that. The hon. Member for Nottingham South just mentioned the principle of getting things right for the longer term, and in pulling the business case, Transport for the North was making sure that it does that.
Northern Powerhouse Rail is a very exciting project. The only point I made when I said I would come back for the next board meeting was that I wanted Transport for the North to get on with the project promptly. Northern Powerhouse Rail and HS2 are linked in lots of ways, and any delays to Northern Powerhouse Rail could compromise other projects, so I urged speedy progress.
Colleagues mentioned HS2. I take the opportunity to confirm that HS2 remains a critical project for the Government.
Jim McMahon
In the light of the comments by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, what representations has the Department for Transport made to reassert the case for HS2? Is the Minister confident that if there were a value-for-money review, the project would make it through?
Andrew Jones
I could answer that in a few ways. First, it is clearly right that the Treasury takes a view on managing the efficiency and delivery of public projects, because so much money is involved. We are spending half a billion pounds a week more on capital projects than the last Labour Government. We are catching up on investment.
What representations do we make? Of course there is regular dialogue between Ministers from all Departments, and certainly between the Department for Transport and the Treasury at both official and ministerial level. The Government remain entirely committed to HS2, which is part of the rebalancing of our national network. We need capacity on the network, and HS2 will deliver it.
Jim McMahon
The Minister has given way extremely generously, and I am grateful for that. Has the Treasury initiated a review of HS2, or did the Chief Secretary’s comment just reflect her personal view?
Andrew Jones
I am not the Minister with responsibility for HS2, so the day-to-day correspondence does not come across my desk, but the Government are entirely committed to HS2. The Treasury is right to say that we will look at projects to ensure that they come in on budget and on time, and that we do not see project-creep in terms of cost. The Treasury has been sighted, for example, on the way we are re-planning our investment process to ensure that decisions are made in as informed a way as possible so that there are as few surprises as possible.
Let me be absolutely clear to everybody that HS2 is a critically important project. Work is already under way to deliver it. The hon. Gentleman made the point that the appetite for it grows the further north one goes, and I am happy to echo that entirely. HS2 presents fantastic regeneration opportunities, about which I have had conversations with Judith Blake in Leeds, Andy Burnham in Manchester and Andy Street in the West Midlands.
The hon. Gentleman also highlighted the industrial relations issues that blight some parts of our rail network. The Government are keen to see a second person on trains. Indeed, we have said that there will be no blockage from the Government if that is what everybody wants. We can make changes to any agreements. Indeed, we have gone further than that and said that we will provide financial support. I have made those comments to the unions and the company. The dispute is between those two parties, but the Government can play a role in creating an environment to help them get around the table and talk, and I think I have done that. I want to see them get around the table and talk and, as they do so, stop the strikes, which have had a detrimental impact on the economy of the north.
I have not yet addressed the comments by the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) about devolution to Scotland. Rail is devolved to Scotland. The Scottish Government set their own high-level output specification. The statement of funds available is above the Barnett formula for CP6. Off the top of my head, having discussed Scottish rail issues with colleagues in the Adjournment debate on Monday night—that was very late, so I understand that not everyone will have been present—I think it is £4.85 billion. There is significant funding available for the Scottish rail network, and the Scottish Government have control over rail.
Ronnie Cowan
This is not just about funding; it is also about control and management. When ScotRail is run by the Scottish Government and Network Rail is run by the UK Government, that can obviously fall between two stools. That is what we seek to address. We want the responsibility to go with the railway.
Andrew Jones
I just point out that decisions about what happens are taken north of the border. We have a national rail network, which cuts across all the nations of the United Kingdom, but decisions are made north of the border. I have had conversations with the Scottish Transport Minister, and I fully understand where his responsibilities start and mine finish.
We have accepted many of the Transport Committee’s recommendations, and I hope I have made it clear that our new approach through the RNEP is clear, logical and fair, and makes sense. We want that approach to lead to better outcomes for passengers, certainty for the supply chain and the industry, and a much more balanced portfolio of investment. I know that colleagues are hungry for investment. We are catching up on decades of under-investment in our rail network and other modes of transport by Governments of all colours. It is clear that we all agree that rail plays a huge role in our national economy, and that is why we are investing in it at record levels. I look forward to keeping the House and the Committee updated on our progress.
Lilian Greenwood
We have had an excellent debate. I thank all those who took part, including my Select Committee colleagues and Members from across the House. I particularly thank the Minister for his willingness to engage so constructively. He can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling across the country—from Essex to Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cambridgeshire and Sussex—about the need for rail investment to be shared more fairly. Members, their constituents and businesses want to hear not only that the Government are listening, but that they will respond. Of course, this is not only about fairness. Failure properly to invest will hold our country and its people back. Effective rail networks and transport networks in general are key to tackling poor productivity.
I am pleased that the Minister has received the rail industry’s decarbonisation report, even if it is only a draft. I look forward very much to hearing what it says and what the Government intend to do in response. I hope he listened to the concerns a number of us raised about the transpennine route upgrade. It is important that the Government deliver on the promise of a wholly electrified line, which would benefit passengers, freight, the economy and the environment.
I welcome the Minister’s comments about the transparency of the enhancements pipeline. We look forward to receiving from the Department more information about which schemes are progressing through the pipeline and further details of the market-led proposals that are in development, which have the potential to improve our rail network and provide much-wanted work for rail companies up and down the country. Of course, enhancement work tends to be quite different from day-to-day maintenance and renewal.
We are in agreement about the level of investment that is going into our network, whether through the money committed in CP6 or through some of the major projects, including HS2. On that we can agree, but I have no doubt that the Committee will continue to scrutinise the work of the Department, to make sure that the investment goes in and to ensure that when new services are developed to benefit from that investment, they are delivered effectively. That has not been the case in the previous year. We all regret the problems with the delivery of the new timetable. There has to be learning from that and we have to move on, particularly so that passengers feel the benefits that they know they have been paying for, for some time. We look forward to future debates, in Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the House, on this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Fourth Report of the Transport Committee, Rail infrastructure investment, HC 582, and the Government response, HC 1557.
Written Statements
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
No-deal EU Exit Contingency Planning: Call-out Order
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
A new order has been made under section 56(1B) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to be called into permanent service in support of the HMG contingency planning for a no-deal EU exit scenario.
Defence is committed to assisting the Cabinet Office co-ordinated work programme to ensure that there are effective and proportionate contingency plans in place to mitigate the potential immediate impacts leaving the EU, under a no-deal scenario, might have on the welfare, health and security of UK citizens and economic stability of the UK.
Reserve forces will be on standby to deliver a range of defence outputs such as: reinforcement of regular sub-units, liaison officer roles and the provision of specialist skills. A particularly important role may be the planned reinforcement of regional points of command, to enable their 24/7 operation and resilience. We would also expect reserves to be drawn upon to support the implementation of contingency plans developed by other Government Departments.
The order shall take effect from the beginning of 10 February 2019 and shall cease to have effect at the end of 9 February 2020.
[HCWS1254]
Environment Council
(5 years, 3 months 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 attended the EU Environment Council on 20 December in Brussels. Mairi Gougeon MSP, the Scottish Minister for Rural Affairs and Natural Environment, also attended. I wish to update the House on the matters discussed.
C02 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles regulation—general approach
Council reached an agreed position (“general approach”) on the regulation on C02 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles. The European Commission had proposed an indicative 30% reduction in emissions by 2030, with a 15% reduction by 2025.
A full roundtable heard Ministers set out their respective positions. The UK intervened calling for greater ambition for 2030 and stressing the need to agree a strong overall package of measures. The presidency presented a revised proposal; the key element being a binding 2030 target, which was sufficient to achieve a general approach. One member state abstained.
Regulation on LIFE—partial general approach
The presidency introduced its compromise text for a partial general approach of the LIFE programme (the EU’s financial instrument supporting environmental, nature conservation and climate action projects throughout the EU), to run from 2021-27. In this revised text, the presidency reintroduced the role of the LIFE committee and placed greater emphasis on geographical balance; member states welcomed the adoption of the partial general approach. While all could support the agreement, a number of member states intervened to restate their preference for higher co-financing rates.
“A Clean Planet for All”: a long-term strategy for EU greenhouse gas emissions reductions—exchange of views
The Commission introduced its long-term strategy on climate, which was published on 28 November 2018, which recommends that the EU aims for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, following which the Council held its first exchange of views. The Council agreed that the strategy should be discussed in multiple council formations in the coming months. Interventions focused on the aim for net zero-emissions, the importance of just transition, the recognition of specific national and regional circumstances, the contribution of technology to decarbonisation, and the role of national long-term strategies.
The UK intervened to highlight that the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report on 1.5 degrees underscored the urgency of tackling climate change, and welcomed the strategy as a serious response that also underlines the benefits of taking action, and stresses the need to ensure that no one is left behind in the transition. The UK highlighted the action being taken across the UK to tackle climate change, and the role of clean growth in the domestic industrial strategy. The UK welcomed the focus in the strategy on carbon capture usage and storage (CCUS), given its vital importance in reducing the costs of decarbonisation and the need for collaboration to scale up CCUS, and also highlighted the need to consider nature-based solutions.
AOB items
The following items were also discussed under any other business.
1. Report on recent international meetings: United Nations framework convention on climate change 24th session of the conference of the parties
The presidency, Commission, and Poland, which held the presidency of the 24th session of the conference to the parties (COP) to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC), presented on COP24, which took place in Katowice, Poland, on 2 to 14 December 2018. The agreement of the rulebook underpinning the Paris agreement was welcomed as a significant achievement.
2. Report on the implementation of the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change
Council noted the information from the presidency.
3. The “Graz Declaration”—Starting a new era: Clean, safe and affordable mobility for Europe
Council noted the presidency presentation on the Graz declaration, which was agreed at October informal Environment Council (29 and 30 October).
4. Measures at EU level to create the conditions for discontinuing the use of the environmentally problematic substances contained in plant protection products
Council noted the information from the Belgian delegation on plant protection products.
5. Intermediary sessions of the meeting of the parties to the convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context (Espoo convention) and the protocol on strategic environmental assessment (SEA)
Lithuania, supported by Luxembourg, presented information concerning the draft recommendations of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Espoo Convention Implementation Committee regarding the Ostrovets new nuclear project in Belarus. These recommendations will be tabled for possible endorsement by the intermediary session of the meeting of the parties to the convention in February 2019.
6. Current legislative proposals
The presidency and the Commission provided an update on current environmental legislative proposals: regulation on taxonomy; directive on single-use plastics; the regulation on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (recast); the regulation on environmental reporting; the directive on drinking water (recast); and the regulation on C02 from cars and vans.
Several member states welcomed the proposals, in particular the progress on the single-use plastics directive. On the recast of the drinking water directive the Commission urged all member states to show flexibility and work together to make swift progress. The UK intervened to welcome the progress on single-use plastics, and outlined the work being done across the UK to tackle plastic waste. On drinking water, the UK noted the recent progress towards a compromise on materials in contact with drinking water, but indicated that there were still outstanding concerns, and on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), the UK intervened to support the Council position on Decabromodiphenyl ether (a flame retardant) and the existing approach for updating the annexes.
7. Report on recent international meeting—convention on biological diversity (CBD) and update from the UK on the London illegal wildlife conference
The Commission and presidency reported back on the recent international meeting on the convention on biological diversity (CBD), in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt on 17 to 29 November. The UK intervened to welcome progress so far and to highlight the commitment that needs to be shown from Governments, civil society and business in order to develop an ambitious post-2020 biodiversity framework.
Following this, the UK gave a short update on the outcomes of the London illegal wildlife trade (IWT) conference held on 11 and 12 October 2018, outlining the importance of member states continuing to work together to tackle this important issue, and the need to treat IWT as a serious organised crime.
8. The future of European environment policy—Towards an 8th EU environment action programme
Council noted the information from the presidency on plans to develop an eighth EU environment action programme.
9. Environmental and climate ambition of the future CAP
Council noted the information from the German delegation, supported by the Luxembourg delegation.
[HCWS1251]
Foreign Affairs Council
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 21 January. It will be chaired by the high representative of the European Union (EU) for foreign affairs and security policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini and will take place in Brussels.
Current affairs
The HRVP is expected to cover Venezuela, the Democratic Republic of Congo and may also raise Syria.
Disinformation
Ministers will discuss implementation of the EU joint action plan on countering disinformation that was approved at the December European Council. We will be pushing for adequate funding to allow for full implementation and a robust process of review to ensure that the plan achieves its objectives. We will also seek to highlight our leadership on this issue and willingness to collaborate with EU partners after March 2019. Russian state disinformation was a pre-cursor to conflict in Georgia in 2008, the invasion and illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and has been used across EU countries since. We have successfully countered a disinformation campaign targeted against UK interests across Europe following the Salisbury attack.
EU-LAS
Ministers will discuss the EU-League of Arab States (LAS) summit that will take place in February in Egypt. The summit is the first of its kind and offers an opportunity to deepen the EU’s relationship with members of the League of Arab States. The UK will support the EU’s ambition for the summit to cover a range of priority topics including migration, Yemen and Syria. We are expecting that the FAC will discuss the decision by some members of the LAS to re-establish diplomatic relations with Syria. The UK will be clear we have no plans to do so.
EU-ASEAN
The FAC will discuss regional issues and the future of the EU-ASEAN relationship ahead of the EU-ASEAN ministerial on the same day.
Council conclusions
The Council is expected to adopt conclusions on Nicaragua, ASEAN and possibly Yemen. With the French and Germans, we are also seeking approval of conclusions on Iran that should reaffirm the EU’s continued commitment to the JCPOA whilst also highlighting our concerns about Iran’s regional and ballistic missile activity.
[HCWS1252]
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am today placing in the Library of the House the Home Office’s analysis on the application of Standing Order 830 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons relating to public business in respect of the Lords amendments to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill.
[HCWS1253]
House of Lords
Education: Art and Design
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage the teaching of art and design in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government want children to be taught a broad and balanced curriculum up to the age of 14. During this time, children should be exploring the widest possible range of subjects, including art and design. Ofsted is currently reviewing its inspection arrangements and launched a consultation yesterday on proposals for a new inspection framework. These proposals will place a strong emphasis on schools providing a broad and balanced curriculum for all their pupils.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, from the decline in arts teaching in primary schools, as described in a new Fabian Society report, to the EBacc’s exclusion of the arts, students are increasingly not receiving the balanced education that they deserve and is necessary for the future of our creative industries. Art and design is under the additional pressure of not attracting ITE bursaries, unlike other subjects which exceed their trainee targets. Will the Government address that unfairness?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we clearly need to prioritise our bursaries budget so that we can incentivise applications in subjects where it is hardest to attract applicants. The vacancy rate, though, for art and design teachers as a percentage of teachers in post is lower than for music; indeed, over the last two years we have seen an increase in the number of applicants for both art and design and drama.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that GCSEs in design and technology have fallen by 30%, which is disastrous? I therefore welcome the support for university technical colleges because our 14,000 students do technical subjects at 16 to 18. Does he welcome the new Ofsted policy from Amanda Spielman, under which in the future Ofsted will concentrate less on exam results and more on a broad and balanced curriculum? This is good for art, music and design and technology.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I agree with my noble friend and section 26 of the consultation document addresses inspections directly. It will accelerate inspections where concerns are identified about the breadth and balance of the curriculum. Paragraph 155 says that inspectors will consider the extent to which the school’s curriculum sets out the knowledge and skills that pupils will gain at each stage. Ofsted will also consider the way that the curriculum selected by the school is taught and assessed, to support pupils to build their knowledge and apply it as skills.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, high-quality arts education as part of a broad curriculum has been shown not just to support our creative industries but to improve academic achievement and enable children to look at problems in different ways. In the light of Ofsted’s consultation on its new framework, which looks at quality, intent and impact in the curriculum, will the Minister say how this Government will ensure that there is no reduction in pupil funding in real terms? Good art education requires good teachers.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The right reverend Prelate is quite right that a broad and balanced education, which includes the arts, is crucial to prepare children for their future lives. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in congratulating Harris Westminster Sixth Form today, where 37 Oxbridge offers have been announced. That is the most incredible performance when we consider that 13 of these children were on the pupil premium, two have been in care and 14 were from ethnic minorities. A major reason in their being able to get there was that they had a broad and balanced education on the way through.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, in his answer to the noble Earl, the Minister referred to vacancy rates in music and drama. Can he tell the House how many schools in the maintained sector no longer have a specialist music or drama teacher of their own? If he cannot tell me, perhaps he could write to me with that information.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I am happy to write to the noble Baroness on that specific subject, but I reassure her that, in primary schools, broadly the same amount of time is spent teaching arts as is spent teaching history and geography. Indeed, the number of pupils taking GCSE art and design was broadly the same last year as in 2009-10: 26% then compared to 27% last year.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister consider that we are having to import people skilled in design and technology? Art and design is the gateway qualification, particularly at GCSE. Would it not be in the nation’s direct interest to make sure that we up the number of people taking examinations at this first step?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we have seen a decline in the number taking design and technology specifically, but there has been a major restructuring in the way that exam is taught. We have replaced it with a new food preparation and nutrition GCSE, examined for the first time in 2018. D&T food technology accounted for nearly 30,000 entries in 2017, and a greater number of pupils took food preparation and nutrition and design and technology combined than took design and technology in 2017. So the numbers are not as bad as they look. We offer a bursary for teachers of design and technology of £12,000 for those with a 2.2 or higher, which has been increased from £9,000.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Is my noble friend encouraged by the continuing growth of partnership schemes between independent and maintained schools? Has he noted that there are now over 1,200 partnership projects in drama and music? Does he agree that independent schools can do more to make their skills and facilities available to their colleagues in the maintained sector?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I agree entirely with my noble friend. One of the things I have prioritised in my discussions with the independent sector is how it can improve and increase its support for the state education sector. Harris Westminster, which I referred to a moment ago, would acknowledge that it received a lot of help from Westminster School in the extraordinary outcomes it got—but there is always more to be done.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to hear from the Minister that Ofsted is to look at this, because arts subjects are compulsory in the national curriculum only at key stages 1 to 3. As the noble Earl said, referring to the Fabian Society report, even there they are in decline. Arts subjects in state schools are being squeezed out by the English baccalaureate, yet the artistic, creative and technical sectors of the economy are worth around £500 billion a year and need just such skills in our young people. Will the Minister accept that the English baccalaureate is the problem here, not the issues he raised previously? Will he commit to fundamentally changing that so that—as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said—the broader curriculum can be performed, allowing us to serve the future needs of our economy?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I am afraid I do not accept for one moment the claims made by the noble Lord. Indeed, in 2009 150,000 pupils took art and design, while 141,000 did so in 2018—that with a cohort of 50,000 fewer pupils in the system for that phase. The noble Lord always seems to avoid the number of subjects we stripped out of the curriculum we inherited from the Labour Government. We took out over 3,000 useless subjects that children were being taught, including fish husbandry, practical office skills and nail technology services. We have brought back rigour to the education that children are learning. In 2009 only 365,000 pupils took science. Last year it was 499,000—that is 130,000 children getting a much better education.
Brexit: Consumer Rights
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of Brexit on the rights of consumers who purchase goods from retailers or manufacturers based in the European Union.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have undertaken a significant amount of work to assess the impacts of leaving the EU. We are committed to maintaining high standards of consumer protection and close co-operation on enforcement. Under the withdrawal agreement, all existing rights for UK consumers will remain the same until the end of the implementation period.
Baroness Wilcox
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response, short though it was. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute runs a centre called the UK consumer centre network, which assists consumers in cross-border disputes with EU traders. Since it was formed just 11 years ago, it has handled more than 100,000 cases. The UK centre is currently co-funded by the UK Government and the European Union. Can the Minister assure the House that, as we leave the European Union, the Government will fully fund the UK part of the centre so that it can continue its excellent work?
Lord Henley
I thank my noble friend for that question. As she will be aware, we have been dealing with consumer affairs quite a lot this week and debated this matter in relation to the Select Committee’s report only last night. In that debate, I made it clear that, in the event of a no-deal exit, the Government have committed to fund the UK European Consumer Centre for at least one more year until March 2020. That will obviously be kept under review during this year.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, what will the Government do about Amazon, which pays its taxes outside the UK? Will we able to claim those taxes back to the UK after Brexit?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that that question is completely wide of that on the Order Paper and I do not intend to answer it.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I declare an interest as a former president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. It is clear to all of us in the sector that consumer rights and protections have been continually strengthened through our membership of the European Union. Why do the Government not value the cross-border enforcement work that the UK European Consumer Centre promotes? Why will they not guarantee beyond one year’s financing—as the Minister has just said—the work of that centre in advising UK consumers at this time of enormous anxiety to them and businesses? Is there any chance of the Government funding beyond one year this very important centre for consumers?
Lord Henley
The noble Baroness, who has great experience in this field, is right to draw the House’s attention to the high levels of consumer protection that we have in this country. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for stressing from the Liberal Democrat Benches only yesterday that they are higher in this country than in most other countries in the EU. Obviously, as the noble Baroness will be aware, we want those protections to be maintained—that is what we have made clear—and we do not think that consumers should see any immediate differences in protection between UK law and that of the member states immediately after exit. It is quite right and proper that UK enforcers should continue to co-operate with their colleagues in other EU states wherever possible. That was also something I was keen to stress in yesterday’s debate.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am getting a sense of déjà vu all over again as this is the third time this week that this question has arisen. I do not believe that the Minister has managed to answer the question once, so will he indulge me again? How will British consumers be protected—if and when we leave the EU—regarding the terms and conditions of purchase before we buy, and afterwards in the event of purchasing faulty goods?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I too feel like this is the latest in a series of number 11 buses coming along together. I have been keen to stress on all occasions—on Tuesday, yesterday and today—that UK consumers should not see any immediate difference. As always, they should continue to read the terms and conditions and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reminding them of that. They should take advice where appropriate from Citizens Advice and, as I said in response to my noble friend Lady Wilcox, there will still be funding for at least one year for the UK European Consumer Centre. We will consider whether to extend that during the course of the year.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has used the phrase, “immediate effect” on two occasions. Does he recall that in October 2016 David Davis, the former Brexit Secretary, said that there would be no downside after Brexit, only a considerable upside? In light of yesterday’s debate, in which the Minister participated, and the report of the EU Justice Sub-Committee, which showed that we are essentially dealing with damage limitation in respect of consumer protection, does he think that Mr Davis’s views were very wide of the mark?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord will remember other remarks in yesterday’s debate about how long a week is. October 2016 is a very long time ago. I merely reiterate that there will be changes, and we want to make sure that they are as minor as possible and that UK consumers continue to have their existing protection.
Railway Services: The Pennines
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on the improvement and enhancement of railway services across the Pennines.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the TransPennine Express franchise will see brand new trains introduced on the route this year to improve and enhance the service. We also plan to invest £2.9 billion in the trans-Pennine route upgrade to deliver faster, more frequent and more reliable journeys between Manchester, Leeds and York, with work beginning this spring. This is our biggest planned investment project on the existing railway.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the problem is that services in the Pennine area, where I live, and in the north as a whole have got worse. One reason for this is the continuing industrial action between Northern, Arriva and the RMT union. There was another strike on Saturday, which I believe is the 45th strike in the past year. Do the Government understand that they specified the services to be provided in the north and that the Northern franchise is a contract between the Government and Arriva? Is it not time that the Government stepped in to assist in sorting out this present shambles?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we want to see further significant improvements in reliability for Northern passengers. The problems we have seen have been caused by a number of factors. We are working closely with Transport for the North, which co-manages the franchise, to drive this, and we have seen significant improvements in reliability, especially since the December timetable changes were successfully introduced. But there have been, as the noble Lord points out, more than 40 days of strikes on Northern and ending these strikes would of course significantly improve reliability. Although the disputes are between the union and the train operators, the Government are doing all they can to help resolve the issue.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has announced the improvement in the service. Is it true that Network Rail wrote to the Transport Secretary in September 2018 saying that from next year for the next five years the line will be closed for 39 weeks each year? Is that right?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I am afraid I have not seen the letter to which the noble Lord refers. This is a huge project—nearly £3 billion to upgrade the route. Of course, there will be disruption alongside that, but we are working hard to make sure that we get the balance right in ensuring that, while we are improving reliability, there are alternative services. We recently completed upgrade works on the Calder Valley line to ensure that there is an alternative route, and we will set out further plans in due course.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, further north there is already a railway line linking Clitheroe in Lancashire to Hellifield, which is in turned linked to the Skipton-Carlisle line, that would open up enormous passenger opportunities. That line was closed in 1964 for passenger services, but has continued to be used for freight. Representations have been made to the Government by Lancashire local authorities, including Ribble Valley, asking for the restoration of passenger services on that line. In comparison with things such as HS2, this would call for very little public money to be spent and would link towns in Lancashire with places in Yorkshire. It would be of enormous economic value in the region, and I hope the Government will consider it seriously.
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Lord for his question. We have a new approach to rail enhancements—the rail network enhancements pipeline—which is following lessons learned from previous commitments. We are studying each of these cases carefully. I am not sure about the specific line to which the noble Lord refers, but I will certainly follow that up and write to him.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Secretary of State blamed the trade unions for the excessive fare rises at the beginning of this year, but across northern England, as elsewhere, last year passengers had a very poor deal. It was caused by a lot more than trade union action alone. Will the Government consider using a fare freeze in future years for companies that fail to deliver a decent service, as they have promised?
Baroness Sugg
I agree with the noble Baroness that the passenger services provided to many parts of the railway system last year were not acceptable. We are working hard to improve them. I know that passengers who have experienced significant delays will be frustrated with rising fares, but we need to be fair to taxpayers as well as passengers; unlike the special compensation scheme we have introduced, which is funded by industry, it would be down to taxpayers to make up the amount if we froze fares. We think that introducing compensation schemes funded by the franchise companies is the best way to target those most affected.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as living in west Cumbria, where the problems we have been hearing about are acute. Does the Minister agree that at the heart of this ongoing story there is an issue about the safety and care of passengers in a one-person operated rail system?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, passenger safety is our top priority. Driver-controlled operation is safe, and more than 50% of all rail journeys in the UK are made on driver-controlled trains. On the specific issue in question, the Transport Secretary has offered guarantees of employment to members who currently fulfil the role of a second person on the train—that is beyond the length of the franchise.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Will the Minister outline what improvements there will be for Bradford? It is our fifth-largest city, and yet it still takes more than 20 minutes to make the seven-mile journey to Leeds. It is not good enough.
Baroness Sugg
We have extensive investment planned for the north. Northern Powerhouse Rail is currently in the development stage, and options are being considered which include serving Bradford. We will be working closely with cities across the north to deliver those improvements and services.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Does my noble friend have any news on the improvements that are needed on the line between London and Lincoln? Does she realise the acute disappointment that was manifest throughout the House when the special House of Lords awayday had to be postponed, particularly since my noble friend Lord Cormack was looking forward to entertaining us all in sumptuous style in the city of Lincoln?
Baroness Sugg
I thought that a different noble friend would ask that question, but I thank my noble friend for his continued interest in this subject. I have met LNER and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in an attempt to make progress on this. LNER is hoping to introduce new services to Lincoln from September this year. This is dependent on Network Rail approving its timetable bid, but its services will operate from Monday to Saturday and will include services suitable for day trips from London to Lincoln, so perhaps the awayday could still go ahead.
Nuclear Power: Future Energy Needs
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the United Kingdom’s future energy needs of any decision by Hitachi to withdraw from the Wylfa Newydd nuclear project and Toshiba having withdrawn from the Moorside project in Cumbria.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s Question is timely. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be making a Statement in another place following Hitachi’s announcement this morning; I would have been happy to repeat it. National Grid has confirmed that it does not see an issue for future security of supply for plans for these projects over the long term, and there is plenty of time for the market to respond.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, our nuclear industry is in crisis; I have to say that that Answer has a certain element of complacency in it. In the 1950s, our nation led the world in nuclear power generation, and decisions by successive Governments of all hues have got us into the position today where we cannot even construct a large civil nuclear reactor. A quarter of our energy is provided by nuclear; looking at 2035, when the energy requirements will be much larger, we are saying that a third of our energy will be supplied by nuclear. Now the only player seems to be Chinese. Bearing in mind our view on the rollout of 5G, are we happy for the Chinese, by 2035, to control one-third of the energy supply of our nation?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord stresses the importance of the nuclear industry and the fact that it is supplying some 20% of our electricity requirements and 40% of low-carbon electricity. Some 15 nuclear reactors operate throughout the UK. We would have hoped for a better announcement from Hitachi but that was not the case, and it is obviously right that my right honourable friend looks to the taxpayer to make sure that there is the appropriate deal for them. At the moment, costs in the nuclear sector are still rising, at a time when costs for a great many renewables are coming down. That is one of the reasons why there are problems. However, the fact is that we have seen the development of Hinkley C, and, as the noble Lord was quite right to suggest, we are the first Government for a number of years to make progress in that area.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, with the possible withdrawal of the Japanese from Wylfa and their withdrawal anyway from Moorside, and with the Chinese building at Bradwell, involved in Sizewell C—which has not been mentioned yet—and of course financing Hinkley C, this places the Chinese, as the noble Lord, Lord West, rightly said, in pole position in the rebuilding and replacement of our nuclear fleet? Does the Minister agree that this will have a major impact on our UK energy policy, which already has all its problems, and will he ask his government colleagues, including the Whips, whether we can have a serious and urgent debate on this whole matter, which has major implications for national security and policy?
Lord Henley
My noble friend is quite right. That was the tail end of the question from the noble Lord, Lord West; I apologise to the House for not being able to address it in the time that was available to me. I certainly agree that it would be timely to have a debate on this in the light of the recent announcement; I was hoping to be able to repeat the Statement, and perhaps there might be other moments when this could happen. However, obviously that is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that putting Wylfa Newydd on indefinite hold causes economic planning blight in north-west Wales, and the north Wales growth deal is based on the assumption that it is going ahead? Will the Government now raise the level of support allocated to this region?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am aware of that growth deal, but I do not accept the noble Lord’s suggestion that this in effect scuppers that—I cannot remember what precise words he used. Obviously, it makes life more difficult, and we would not have wished to have to make this Statement, but it is also right that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State looks to the calls on the taxpayer and ensures that we get a good deal for any investment we make.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that the market has time to respond. The market has responded. EDF caught a cold and got cold feet, Toshiba has pulled out, Hitachi has pulled out. What is the market in large nuclear generation and what is the Government’s plan B if they fail to deliver the financial engineering, as they clearly are at the moment?
Lord Henley
My Lords, in responding to questions of this sort at the Dispatch Box, it is difficult to go into the full details of what was planned. As I said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make a Statement any minute now on the subject—I am waiting for a signal. I would have been happy to have repeated it, but no doubt the noble Lord and I, and others, can discuss it afterwards, and there may be other opportunities to have a wider debate on the subject.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, this is the second major blow to the long-term strategy of electricity supply here in the United Kingdom. As my noble friend Lord West pointed out, we cannot deliver this technology ourselves, having been a world leader for decades. If we cannot trust the Chinese with optical fibre technology, are we really going to put all our eggs in the Chinese basket on nuclear technology?
Lord Henley
My Lords, as I said, this announcement is not welcome. I should have preferred to have had more time to debate it in a proper and timely manner. Nevertheless, we remain committed to nuclear power. The noble Lord will remember our nuclear sector deal. We will look to see what we can do. We still have a great deal of expertise in this country, and I think we can work on that.
Business of the House
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Lisvane set down for today shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of Baroness Kidron to 2 hours.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to assist the House. Your Lordships will be aware that, normally on a Wednesday morning, the future business of the House for the following week is published, and yet here we are at almost 20 minutes to 12 on Thursday and we have not yet had sight of the business for next week. This is quite extraordinary and, as far as I am aware, unprecedented. I appreciate that the Prime Minister is highly likely to be making a Statement on Monday that will require a debate within seven days, which may require some change, but I fail to understand why the business for next week is not available. Can the noble Baroness or her colleague the Chief Whip enlighten the House as to the problem?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that all our business next week has been tabled in the greens and has been available to noble Lords. We shall be publishing Forthcoming Business as soon as we can today because, as she may not be aware, the House of Commons business has just been announced through the business Statement, which we felt was likely to have an impact, and we wanted to discuss it through the usual channels to ensure that the House of Lords business matched. We will be talking through the usual channels as soon as we leave this Chamber in order that we can publish Forthcoming Business as soon as we can afterwards.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, on next week’s business, the House will be aware that a very exciting by-election is taking place at present, the result of which is to be declared next Wednesday. In the past, we have not had the sufficient information that one would normally expect from a returning officer of a by-election, and I wonder whether the Leader of the House could use her authority to arrange with the usual channels that on Wednesday, when the result is announced, key pieces of information such as turnout, the number of votes cast for each candidate, the number of spoilt ballots and all the other details which the House would wish to hear are provided.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am sure the noble Lord is aware that this does not have much relevance to today’s Motion, but his comments have been heard.
Brexit: Stability of the Union
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lisvane
That this House takes note of the possible effects of Brexit on the stability of the Union of the parts of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the business we are about to begin is very important and there is a real desire to hear from every contributor. However, time is tight so, in the nicest way possible, I ask noble Lords to adhere to the time allocated to them. When the Clock reaches five minutes, I will stand up to maintain order in the debate.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I begin with a word of thanks to those Cross-Bench colleagues who voted for the Motion to be debated. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is to reply to the debate for the Government. In view of our happy co-operation in former lives, I hope that I may refer to him as my noble friend on this occasion. I see from the speakers’ list that I am allotted 15 minutes in moving the Motion. That is an unimaginable luxury but, in view of the long list of speakers, I shall try not to use all that time and so perhaps offer a little elbow room to other noble Lords. I am extremely grateful to the Government Chief Whip for the half-hour extension to the debate.
The Motion is couched specifically in terms of the hazards to the union posed by Brexit, but the seeds were sown long before. We have a worrying habit in this country of doing constitutional change in bits, as the occasion serves, but with little overall intent or co-ordination. I have seen the process at close quarters for 46 years, so I entirely understand how this has come about. The Government, often incoming, have their priorities and wish to demonstrate their authority. The business managers wish to make rapid progress with focused proposals. They do not much like Parliament going into what might be called seminar mode. And of course, there is the ever-looming phenomenon of “Events, dear boy, events”.
The result over several Parliaments is that we are left with a patchwork. Nowhere is this clearer than in the devolution of powers to different parts of the United Kingdom. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have different models of devolved government. They have developed independently and subject to the successive pressures of the moment; no one, I think, would regard any of them as wholly successful. Moreover, they are characterised by a sort of imperial condescension from the centre—from Westminster and Whitehall, but especially from the latter—and they are inconsistent. As a Welshman by birth and title, I think I may ask why Scotland and Northern Ireland can set their own rates of air passenger duty but Wales cannot. Indeed, why are justice and policing devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland but not in Wales? I am glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd is addressing that question through the work of his commission. England, the largest part of the UK, accounts for some 85% of United Kingdom GVA and a little more in terms of population and GDP, yet, with the exception of London and a few city mayors, it has been largely omitted from these changes. Of course, that poses a pressing but ever more intractable “English question”.
I have described an unsatisfactory and probably unstable system that has come about through a variety of political pressures and aspirations, often worthy in themselves but with unco-ordinated and piecemeal results. Were we not now set to leave the European Union, in any event, significant centrifugal forces in the years ahead would put the integrity and stability of the UK’s devolution settlement at risk. The profound Brexit changes now in contemplation will, I suggest, only increase that risk. I am sure that noble Lords taking part in the debate will have many expert perceptions of how the months ahead may put further strain on the union. I note that your Lordships’ Constitution Committee has described our territorial constitution as “in flux” and our European Union Committee has said that,
“the European Union has been, in effect, part of the glue holding the United Kingdom together”.
What are the main hazards? The first is the Brexit process itself, bearing in mind that in the referendum, two of the constituent parts of the UK voted differently from the other two and differently from the overall result. Secondly, the repatriation of powers will be contentious. Central government will want to protect the UK-wide single market by retaining substantial powers in London, but Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast will not see it like that. Also, the repatriation process will, I think, take longer than anyone at the moment predicts, which is not going to help. The complex exchanges over the Scottish and Welsh continuity Bills and the referral of the Scottish Bill to the Supreme Court demonstrate that there are serious unresolved tensions. The Scottish constitutional relations Secretary has referred to “constitutional vandalism” and has said that he,
“could not conceive of circumstances”,
in which the Scottish Parliament would give its consent to further UK Brexit-related legislation.
Our departure from the EU will intensify debate about the fair funding of the different parts of the UK. It is a commonplace to say that we must move on from the Barnett formula, but it is not yet clear how we should do so. In Northern Ireland, the issues of borders and backstops are already causing great concern and contention, and lurking behind those issues is the aspiration of some for reunification. There is also the risk, identified by the Scottish Government, that future customs arrangements might give Northern Ireland a competitive advantage among the parts of the United Kingdom.
In Scotland, a significant proportion of those who supported independence in 2014 did so on the basis that an independent Scotland would or could become a member state of the EU. The UK having left the European Union would, in the case of Scotland, remove the long-standing unwillingness of the EU to countenance subnational aspirations, as would still be the case with Lombardy, Catalunya, Flanders and so on. This might be a seductive prospect in the context of any indyref2.
Intergovernmental relations within the United Kingdom are the concern of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which has now been in existence for 20 years—20 years this year, actually. This should be the key forum for the discussion of developing relations, but both the Scottish and the Welsh Governments have expressed dismay at the way it is operated. Her Majesty’s Government have the opportunity to make this a much more effective mechanism to support the Brexit process. I trust that this is something that will receive close attention, as recommended by our EU and Constitution Committees and the equivalent committees in Scotland and Wales. I hope that in his reply to the debate, the noble Lord will be able to tell us the Government’s current thinking on how the JMC might be overhauled.
The House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has suggested that separate English representation on the JMC would be a way of addressing the English question, although how this would be achieved in practice is not entirely clear. It is a pleasure to pay tribute to the work of the Interparliamentary Forum on Brexit, which brings together the chairs and convenors of the committees scrutinising Brexit at Westminster, Edinburgh and Cardiff with, understandably in the current circumstances, the participation of officials from Belfast as observers. The forum, which happens to be meeting at Westminster today, offers a mutually supportive and constructive approach which so far has not, I think, quite been replicated in the JMC, which the forum has described as “not fit for purpose”.
Noble Lords may be chafing slightly at my listing a litany of problems without any suggestion of how they might be cured. In the excellent debate in your Lordships’ House before Christmas, there were calls for a constitutional convention or commission. In replying to that debate, the noble Lord who is now on the Front Bench said that the wide-ranging nature of the issues raised meant that any convention looking into them would take years to do them justice. I have a lot of sympathy with his point of view. It would be hard to argue that such a convention should be anything other than comprehensive, which might further reduce the likely glacial pace of such an initiative. Time is not on our side.
I do not suggest that the Act of Union Bill, which I introduced in October, has all the answers, but at least it seeks to address the problems in an holistic way. I must be careful not to offend against anticipation—this is a debate on the Motion before us, not on the Second Reading of the Bill—but perhaps, with your Lordships’ permission, I may say a few words about it.
The Bill is the result of the work of the Constitution Reform Group, which consists of members of all the major parties, including the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, both of whom are in their place. The group is convened and chaired by Lord Salisbury, a former distinguished Member and indeed Leader of your Lordships’ House, and the Bill has been drafted by the outstanding parliamentary draftsman Daniel Greenberg. It seeks to replace the present top-down method of devolution with a bottom-up method, in which the constituent parts of the United Kingdom—and perhaps the regional parts of England—would decide which powers they wished to pool for greater solidarity and effectiveness. It would replace the central imperial condescension, to which I referred earlier, with a devolution settlement properly owned by its participants. It would also include something perhaps missing from the present arrangements: the R word—respect.
The Bill is comprehensive but it does not attempt to provide a full written constitution. It does not, for example, touch those parts that work perfectly well, such as the courts and the judiciary. But it does seek to address the areas of difficulty, some of which I have outlined. It would not try to bind a subsequent Parliament—no Bill can do that—but it offers an overarching settlement with an indication of how primary legislation of, as it were, the second tier could fill in some of the detail. And there is a lot of detail to be filled in. In a sentence, it aspires to be a plan B. As each day passes, I become more and more convinced that we need a plan B.
Lord Dunlop (Con)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. He and I made our maiden speeches on the same day and he speaks with the greatest authority on constitutional matters.
Brexit raises fundamental issues, not least the question of trust in democratic institutions here and right across Europe. It is absolutely right, therefore, to consider afresh governance within the UK. Brexit is seen as, at best, a challenge to the stability of the UK and, at worst, leading inexorably to its break-up. However, the picture is much more complex. The biggest threat to the union hitherto—the 2014 Scottish independence referendum—took place at a time when no one thought Brexit a serious possibility and after 40 years of EU membership. That should give us all pause for thought. Yes, continued membership of the EU was an argument in the 2014 referendum, but it was neither a primary nor decisive one. Currency and fiscal questions were much more important. Nicola Sturgeon’s efforts since the 2016 vote to weaponise Brexit to justify a second Scottish independence referendum have so far failed. Support for independence remains at or less than the 45% level registered in the 2014 referendum. Why might this be?
First, there are around 400,000 yes voters in Scotland who support Brexit. Secondly, linking Scottish independence to EU membership is a hard sell for many nationalists. In their minds, throwing off the yoke of Westminster for that of Brussels is not the most persuasive pitch. Thirdly, if the Brexit negotiations demonstrate how difficult it is to leave a 40 year-old union, they also highlight how fraught it would be to disentangle a 300 year-old partnership. Alex Salmond’s confident assertions that Scottish independence could be negotiated in 18 months, incurring just £200 million in set-up costs, seem even more fantastical today than they did at the time. Nevertheless, the risks and challenges to the union should not be underestimated. However, the key point, which the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has already made, is that renewing the UK’s territorial constitution is necessary irrespective of Brexit.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has proposed a new Act of Union. I sympathise with its underlying purpose to provide a coherent UK framework within which powers are exercised. However, I am sceptical of federal-like solutions. First, there is the problem of England. No federal state in the world has one component part representing 85% of the whole population or has as few as four federating units. There is also scant evidence that this is what people in England want. The British Social Attitudes and Future of England surveys offer little sign of a growing sense of English identity. Attitudes have hardly changed in the past 20 years. England’s laws decided by English MPs is, in surveys, more popular among voters than either creating a separate English Parliament or a set of regional assemblies.
Secondly, there is the problem of the SNP Government in Edinburgh. I have difficulty seeing SNP Ministers agreeing to renew their constitutional marriage vows in a new Act of Union when their raison d’être is to sue for divorce. Moreover, a big-bang approach as described simply provides the SNP with a fresh platform to argue for more powers, and risks hollowing out the UK, when the Scottish Government are struggling to use the powers they already have.
A more incremental approach is required. Over the past 20 years significant powers have been devolved to Holyrood, Cardiff and Belfast. However, less attention has been paid to the glue—the institutions and mechanisms —that holds together the UK. Reform here has not kept pace with the extent of devolution which, once the repatriation of powers from Brussels is settled, will arguably have reached a natural limit.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but five minutes have gone.
Lord Dunlop
Attention should be paid to the machinery of intergovernmental relations, which needs to be strengthened. We also need to look at the cross-UK synergies, weakened since devolution, which need to be reinvigorated.
We need to pursue a decentralised, pan-UK strategy for rebalancing the economy, driven by city regions across the country. This means moving away from seeing everything through a four-nation prism. Many of the problems confronting Glasgow, for example, are similar to those of Manchester or Birmingham. They provide embryonic structures which can be built upon. There are two years until the next Holyrood elections. Strengthening our union must be an urgent priority whatever our post-Brexit future.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, in my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House in July 2010 I expressed a hope that a new generation of politicians and leaders in the House of Commons, many of whom had been elected after 1999, might provide a fresh opportunity for reinvigorating the relationship between Westminster, Whitehall and the devolved Governments and Parliaments of the United Kingdom. At that time I said that I wanted to use my time in your Lordships’ House to celebrate and contribute to debates on the future of that multinational, multicultural union. For that reason if no other—even if I have been disappointed since by the performance of successive Governments, who have let us down in that fresh hope—I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on securing this welcome debate today and on the work that he has done since entering your Lordships’ House in bringing a fresh and positive approach in looking ahead to the future of the United Kingdom. The balanced tone of his introduction was extremely welcome.
I do not want to concentrate in this debate on the old debates from 2014, 2016 and since about Brexit and the nations of the United Kingdom. I hope I can use the title of the debate loosely in order to say something about the future. In relation to Brexit I wish to make two points.
First, the lack of transparency and openness on both sides in the discussions between the UK Government and the devolved Governments on the way in which Brexit affects the devolution settlement is something I warned about in your Lordships’ House, and it has contributed to the situation we are in today with such a stalemate in the other place. Secondly, I think there is a real difficulty in many of the arguments that have taken place over the past two months in relation to the so-called Northern Ireland backstop. There is diversity in legislation throughout the United Kingdom, not just between Scotland and the rest of the UK or just between Wales and the rest of the UK, but consistently between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. To say that that diversity could not be part of the long-term deal that results from the other agonies of Brexit is wrong. The idea that there is some uniformity of legislative and constitutional approach across the UK is simply not true. It never has been, but it is certainly not true in the period since 1999.
The piecemeal approach to constitutional change since 1999 has done great damage to belief in politics and government and the future of the union in the UK. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, that not everything that has happened since devolution has been successful, it has also not been a disaster, which is what was predicted. There is incredible positivity around some of the diversity of legislation, policy initiatives and leadership across the country, but we face a new challenge following the referendum of 2016. So far the Government have not met that challenge.
There is an opportunity here. Perhaps the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the first of those devolved Parliaments gives us another opportunity to do this. There is an opportunity to look again post-Brexit at the way in which the UK state relates to the different constituent parts of the UK and at how in practice we exercise government between Whitehall, Westminster, the devolved Parliaments and the devolved Governments. There is a need for much more accountability and transparency in whatever relationship occurs. I have never been a supporter of the joint ministerial committees. I did my best to abolish them when I was First Minister. I think they are the wrong mechanism. We need a much better and stronger relationship than committees that meet on an occasional basis and are just talking shops. We also need the UK Government to restructure themselves. The outdated posts of Secretaries of State should have gone a long time ago, and they need to go now with a new relationship inside Whitehall between Whitehall and the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, said, the national institutions of the UK need to reform and change too. Twenty years on, there has been virtually no real change in the way in which the national institutions of the UK relate to the devolved Governments and Parliaments and take account of the diversity of identity. If the Government seize the opportunity to take that approach post-Brexit, perhaps we will see the positive approach of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, reflected in our future constitutional arrangements.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I shall focus on the English question and emphasise that England’s place within the union is also in flux and confusion. One Brexit-supporting placard outside Parliament on Tuesday read, “Save England’s Constitution” —but you cannot save something that does not exist.
After the confused debate on an English Parliament and English votes for English laws, it remains doubtful that England as such is an appropriate framework for devolution in a looser UK. In a blog for the Constitution Unit in December 2018, Sir John Curtice stated that opinion polls show,
“little evidence that there is a growing sense of English identity south of the border”.
The EU referendum highlighted the political and social divisions within England, and we all know that regional equalities between English regions are the widest in any European country. Flows of EU funds to universities, companies and other bodies in the poorer regions partly help to redress this imbalance, but there is no guarantee that they will continue after Brexit.
Unlike the Barnett formula, there is no political framework for fiscal redistribution within England. The bias in infrastructure spending towards the south has become a highly visible issue across the north of England in recent years. Disillusion with the northern powerhouse—now an empty slogan—is widespread.
The Government’s approach to devolution within England is top-down, based on city regions and elected mayors. For the north of England, they are becoming steadily more confused. Last weekend, the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse proposed the establishment of a “Department for the North”, with its own Secretary of State to sit alongside those for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—a major administrative change, if not a constitutional one. Can the Minister tell us whether this reflects the Government’s current position and when they will provide more detail on this interesting idea? Meanwhile, devolution for Yorkshire is stalled, with the same Minister insisting that Yorkshire has to have four city regions, while the overwhelming majority of Yorkshire local authorities, across all parties, support a “One Yorkshire” approach. Can the Minister tell us when we may expect a coherent government response to this proposal?
The Prime Minister repeatedly claims that the Conservatives are “the party of union”. It is much more the party of England, and predominantly of southern England at that. Senior Conservative Ministers overwhelmingly represent Home Counties constituencies. One of the major flaws in our first past the post voting system is that it exaggerates the regional differences between our major parties, with Labour representing the north and the industrial Midlands of England, together with Scotland and Wales, and the Conservatives the comfortable and wealthy south.
Other speakers will, rightly, point out how far devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has altered old assumptions about the British constitution. Reductions in the powers of English local authorities in recent decades and cuts in central support for their funding, which are still continuing, have left England the most centralised state in the democratic world. The shrinkage of local democratic government has contributed to popular disillusionment with politics as such, and the psychological distance from England’s west and north to London has fuelled discontent further. Of course, it is not easy to agree on a map for devolution to English regions across the Midlands and the south—but, with London as a city now an outpost of devolution in an otherwise centralised England, we have to address the issue.
Devolution within England, as well as to our other three nations, should also feed into constitutional reform at Westminster. I have been one of a long succession of Ministers who have tried to promote reform of the Lords, and I still bear the scars of that experience. A stronger second Chamber, more effectively checking executive power, would appropriately be constituted on the basis of regional representation, whether directly or indirectly elected, as the coalition Government proposed. However, both Conservative and Labour Front Benches continue to oppose a stronger second Chamber for fear that it would limit the power of a Government—executive sovereignty, of course—with a majority in the Commons to push through their legislation unamended.
Brexit will shake the union of the United Kingdom, but it will also worsen the growing divide between the richest and poorest regions of England. That divide, and the disillusion it has bred, must be addressed through constitutional change, as well as through economic redistribution.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, future generations of historians mulling over and analysing the dysfunction and muddle of the Brexit negotiations will, I suspect, have particular difficulty understanding and explaining how the charge was led by a party that still calls itself the Conservative and Unionist Party and by the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, the hardest and purest of Brexit supporters, despite the risk, I would say with some confidence, of actual damage to the United Kingdom’s own union and very possibly its unity. No amount of prime ministerial labelling of the union, metronomically, as “precious” will conceal that reality. So all credit to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for shedding some light on this rather neglected aspect of Brexit before it is too late to do anything about it except bemoan it.
At the time, were we warned about these risks that would be incurred, especially in Northern Ireland, if the UK voted to leave? Of course we were. A few days before the vote, the two Prime Ministers who did most to build the Good Friday agreement, John Major and Tony Blair, jointly gave a stark warning. Since then, precursors of the damage to come—discord over the role of the devolved Administrations in the Brexit process, failure to constitute an Administration in Belfast and the turmoil over the Irish backstop—have multiplied.
In Scotland and Northern Ireland, as others have said, there were clear majorities in favour of remaining in the EU. The democratic legitimacy of those votes is indisputable, but you do not often hear that recognised by supporters of Brexit—and you never hear it recognised by the DUP. Overriding that legitimacy with the leave votes in England and Wales is precisely the sort of majoritarian supremacy that fuels the cause of Scottish independence and of the union of the two parts of Ireland. Will that be different if Brexit goes ahead on the basis of leaving with the Prime Minister’s deal, or without a deal at all? I doubt that. The contrary is far more likely—and I would include Wales, even though its voters opted to leave.
The Government’s own studies indicate a considerable and continuing loss of economic growth as a result of Brexit, and the less prosperous parts of the country, among which Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland undoubtedly rank, are likely to suffer disproportionately. The much-trumpeted prize for the UK of having its own trade policy is likely to result in concessions to trade partners such as the US, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and Argentina that will damage sheep and beef farmers in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Even fishermen, among the strongest supporters of Brexit, are likely to be disappointed as the cruel deception of the Government’s claim that access to markets and access to waters are totally different things is shipwrecked on the rocks of the EU’s interests in the post-Brexit negotiations.
Then there will be the discord that is likely to reign over the exercise of the UK’s miserably diminished influence on the shaping of EU policies post Brexit. Are there not likely to be differences between Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Belfast and Westminster and Whitehall over trying to influence trade and regulatory measures in Brussels? Will Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales not fight their corners in Brussels, thus further weakening the influence of the UK? Of course they will—and each setback in the unequal relationship between the UK and the EU will foster the sense of separation.
If even a part of these admittedly gloomy predictions is borne out, our union is in for a rough ride in a post-Brexit world. Would it not be more sensible and honest to recognise now that continued membership of the EU is far more likely to consolidate the unity of the UK than its leaving the EU, and then to give all four nations that make up the United Kingdom a say on whether to accept the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated or whether to remain in the EU? Of course, that could result in an outcome similar to that in 2016, in which case it would have to be accepted, but we would at least have demonstrated that we had paid some attention to the attitudes and opinions of all parts of the union and that we regarded the stability of the union, which today’s debate has so usefully brought to the fore, as something that we not only paid lip service to but really meant.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I very much welcome the debate in the House this afternoon. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who spoke before me, that this was a United Kingdom vote, not a regional vote. I could point to parts of this United Kingdom that also voted to stay within Europe. Do we treat them differently? I do not think so. The vote, as far as we are concerned, was right across the United Kingdom.
A week is a long time in politics and the uncertainties over Brexit will certainly intensify over the next number of weeks, with our precious union very much at the heart of the storm. The issue of the union has been central to much of the criticism levelled against our Prime Minister. It was specifically cited by many of those Cabinet Ministers who resigned their ministerial posts several weeks ago. They realised that the integrity of the United Kingdom should not be undermined simply to comply with the EU’s desire to protect its own single market. Of course, in Northern Ireland, the focus has been on the deal agreed with the EU by the Prime Minister and the so-called backstop, a deal which puts the union, which she professes to cherish, at such grave risk.
These are critical times for our precious union, and we must all act in the national interest. I agree with noble Lords: our union is evolving, and has evolved over the last 100 years. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have different devolution models, but that should not stop us protecting this union. In Scotland, Scottish nationalists are pushing for another referendum on independence. In Northern Ireland, we know that people use Brexit to frustrate the union. Unfortunately, this Government, and especially the Prime Minister, have allowed the border to be used by some people in Northern Ireland as a political stick to beat her with in negotiating a deal with Europe. That is the tragedy of this whole thing. I have to say to the House, we have been let down by a British Prime Minister who gave us so many promises on the backstop and the border, and then agreed to a deal that certainly creates a major problem for ourselves as unionists in Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister talked about her beloved union. In fact, at her party conference she talked about her “precious union”. If the Prime Minister really believes in what she says—I believe she does—the integrity of the United Kingdom should be the most important issue for her in the future and in future negotiations with the European Union. We continually said to the Prime Minister that the road she was travelling would leave many issues for the unionist community in Northern Ireland in particular, but also the whole community. I do not think we should allow anybody—Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—to find a way of damaging this beloved union.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hay, who correctly reminded us that the question on the ballot paper in 2016 was of course whether the United Kingdom should remain or leave, not constituent parts of it. I would like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for not only bringing this important issue before your Lordships’ House but, above all, the constitutional expertise he invests in trying to find and take forward a sustainable and workable solution to our imperfect and—as I think we all acknowledge—asymmetric union.
As I said in my own debate on this topic a year ago, above all, and like many in this House, I increasingly find that my unionism drives and underpins my political opinions. Unsurprisingly, in 2014 I voted no, and Scotland remained part of the United Kingdom. My decision in 2016 to vote to remain in the European Union was, like that of many in Scotland and Northern Ireland, more than influenced by my fears for the impact on the union of a leave vote.
My concerns failed to understand that, even for those Scots who voted to remain in the United Kingdom in 2014 and to remain in the European Union in 2016, remaining part of the United Kingdom and avoiding a further divisive independence referendum was far more important. In underestimating that feeling I was not alone. Many in the unionist commentariat in Scotland saw the end of the union coming with a UK leave vote in 2016. It is little wonder, therefore, that Scotland’s First Minister saw her opportunity on 23 June 2016 to once again start the process of an independence referendum, which she continued by asking for a Section 30 order in February 2017. The Scottish people gave their judgment on that in the general election of 2017 and the Scottish National Party lost half a million votes and 21 Members of Parliament.
I understand the motives of those who wish to see a “big bang” moment to protect our union. However, I am not quite as convinced as others in your Lordships’ House of the need for a constitutional convention or, indeed, a new Act of union. In the excellent debate in this House in December it was correctly identified that further constitutional change could not be top down—something I wholeheartedly agree with. I am not convinced that there is the public consent necessary for a further constitutional convention, or for the referendum that would need to follow a new Act of union to guarantee that consent. I fear that, certainly in Scotland, such a referendum on a new Act of union would not be a calm, dispassionate discussion on the pooling of resources in the UK but rather, once again a divisive and passionate independence referendum filled with fake news.
However, I am not complacent about our constitutional settlement. The Clause 11 debate during the passage of the withdrawal Bill demonstrated that our inter- governmental relations are not perfect, as has the detail of Brexit. Last year, I could speak optimistically of the devolved Administrations’ understanding of the importance of the single United Kingdom market and of the desirability of legislative consent Motions in the Scottish and Welsh Administrations. I am afraid that our intergovernmental relationships were not strong enough to broker that reasonably. That underlines the importance of ensuring that future intergovernmental relations become an arena not purely for debate but for agreement, where the principals do not leave the room and immediately take to platforms for press statements. That might require a statutory basis.
In my opinion, the union—certainly in Scotland—has survived the Brexit stress test so far, but until we properly institute an improved, robust and regular opportunity for proper intergovernmental engagement, I fear that more stresses lie ahead.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for initiating the debate. The principal organ for maintaining the stability of the union must be the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The role of the devolved Administrations, though important, is complementary. I will give an immediate example—two in fact—where the United Kingdom Government have not strained to fulfil this important role.
The original proposals of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill certainly did not do so. In its clawing-back proposals—Clause 11 in particular—it ignored what the devolved Administrations had been enjoying for years. As far as Wales was concerned, through the good sense of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Mr Mark Drakeford, agreement was reached. In Scotland, agreement was not reached. There has been litigation, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, but the bottom line is the statement of the Scottish Constitutional Relations Secretary that he could not conceive of a situation where legislative consent would be given to any matter from the United Kingdom Parliament on agriculture, trade and fisheries. Perhaps the Minister could tell me what the state of play is now as far as Scotland is concerned on that aspect.
The Agriculture Bill now going through the Commons suffers from the same difficulty and the Delegated Powers Committee of this House has hammered its proposals because, again, they bypass Parliament and the devolved Administrations. The proposals give powers back to United Kingdom Crown Ministers and ignore what has been developed. We in this House will therefore have to return to this in due course. These are recent examples of what the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, referred to as “imperial condescension”. Nothing seems to have been learned and we are back to square one on this issue.
The next issue I want to raise is whether another independence referendum in Scotland would destabilise the union. I venture to think, perhaps surprisingly, that it might not. I regret that there is no SNP representation in this House. Sinn Féin has a long-standing objection to representation in the Commons; in my role as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, I discovered that fairly rapidly. Nationalist parties from the time of the Irish Members have had an influence in the Commons well above their numbers. From 1885 to 1906, they dominated Parliament, and the Liberal Government of the day had to rely on them because they had no majority until 1906. The Callaghan Government, in which I played a part, lost their vote of confidence in 1979 by one vote because although the SNP had been warned that turkeys do not vote for Christmas, it pulled the plug on the Government. As a result, it lost nine of its 11 Members.
I am relaxed about whether the SNP gets its second referendum—another once-in-a-lifetime one, it has been called. As an outsider but an interested Celt, I do not think it would undermine the United Kingdom’s situation and perhaps the Scots might enhance our stability by being released from their grouse of democratic deprivation. I would not forecast the result but I would warn the SNP about any economy based on how a sheik in the Middle East turns the tap on oil, given the volatility of its price. Perhaps it should look at the biblical advice of not building its house either on sand or on the product of sand.
I close by remarking that the future must be resolved on a much more basic principle of having a convention, which we discussed in the last debate, to ensure that piecemeal reform is not continued. Rather, we should look comprehensively at the future while understanding the development of the existing and new powers. If we are to have a stable future, a convention is required.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, across the UK, Scotland and London voted most strongly for remain, which is somewhat ironic given the nationalists’ antipathy towards London and London-based government. Northern Ireland voted clearly for remain, only to find its hard-line Brexit party tweaking the tail of a Brexit-traumatised Conservative Government. A lot has been said, I think rightly, about Theresa May’s and Jeremy Corbyn’s cavalier disregard for those who voted remain. “You lost. Get over it”, they say, but they have been unable to come up with anything that can unite a majority. When the DUP is challenged for representing a minority in Northern Ireland, it asserts that remain voters are predominantly nationalists and can therefore apparently be discounted—second-class votes.
Membership of the EU resides with the United Kingdom and it is not possible for parts of the UK to be in and parts to be out. I suggest that raises the question as to whether we should ever have sought a simple binary majority, or one that was qualified by the views of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom as well.
During a recent visit to Derry, I was able to see and hear how differences already affect what is located on which side of the border and how people and services operate. Moderate unionists who voted remain are beginning to consider whether the complexities of Brexit might make the prospect of a united Ireland unexpectedly attractive, especially now they see a much more liberal Republic and a frozen conservative Province in the north. The polarisation of Northern Ireland politics has left the Province without a democratic voice. Disillusioned young people at an integrated school that I visited in Derry told me that they thought that violence would return to the Province. I was quite shocked that they were unanimous in their view.
For a long time—the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, referred to this—many people thought that nationalism could be contained within the European Union or at least under its umbrella. That is kind of logical given that the raison d’être of the European Union was to find mechanisms to avoid conflicts getting out of control and leading to war—which has been one of its great achievements.
For many years, the SNP campaigned under the slogan, “Independence in Europe”, so leaving the EU is a problem for it. First, a significant proportion of its voters chose Brexit. Secondly, leaving the UK without the comfort of the EU umbrella could leave Scotland in a cold place, with no prospect of a quick re-entry into the EU. Campaigners in favour of remain have sometimes prayed in aid divergence with Scotland as a threat to the union in simplistic terms. The people of Scotland voted remain by a large margin. Theresa May’s dead deal, something similar or no deal would in many ways be a betrayal of Scotland, or at least an insensitive disregard for the concerns and preferences of its people. Of course, that is seized on by the SNP to make the case for a second independence referendum. “Let’s vote for independence and rejoin the EU”, it says, except it is not that simple. First, the UK is overwhelmingly Scotland’s biggest market. Secondly, however sympathetic the EU may be to Scotland’s warmth towards that Union—in contrast with the SNP’s hostility to this union—Scotland would have to take years and deep economic pain before it could accede to membership, during which time it would be outside both unions.
Surely it is time, Brexit or not, to sort out the mess that the United Kingdom has become and to create a constitution worthy of its name, which guarantees the human rights of everyone in the United Kingdom and accommodates the views and wishes of the devolved Administrations and the regions of England in a legal framework. The Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, is a good start. I understand why he asserts that nothing could challenge the sovereignty of this United Kingdom Parliament, but I think that he would recognise that, if it were a matter of a transition to a federal Government, we would eventually need a constitution to which even this House and the other House would have to be subordinated. That is how most modern democracies work. Ours is not working; it is time that we modernised it.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, who spoke with his customary clarity. I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on securing this important debate.
I shall make just two points. The first concerns arrangements for intergovernmental relations in our union. Our intergovernmental arrangements are completely out of date. The governing document is a 60-page memorandum of understanding dated October 2013. Our Constitution Committee produced a report, Inter-governmental Relations in the United Kingdom, in March 2015 and made many recommendations. It produced a second report, The Union and Devolution, in May 2016 and made further recommendations. The Government’s response to the first report turned up only in January 2017. In the meantime, nothing has happened to the memorandum of understanding, yet since it was published in October 2013, we have had the Scottish referendum, the Scotland Act 2016, the Wales Act 2017 and now Brexit. The landscape has changed and is changing further. Much more power over many more areas resides with devolved structures, yet the Government have not followed up and have ignored the compelling reports of the Constitution Committee. This failure to engage in a calculated reconstruction of how intergovernmental relations work in the union is a very risky omission and action is needed. Can the Minister tell us what is happening and what the timetable is for having new arrangements?
My second point concerns inter-parliamentary arrangements in our union. The EU Select Committee’s July 2017 report Brexit: Devolution concluded that there was a need for more inter-parliamentary dialogue and co-operation. For Brexit, we recommended regular joint meetings between the relevant committees with responsibility for Brexit-related issues in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies, and of course at Westminster. We recommended that these take place for the duration of the Brexit negotiations. We went on to say, at paragraph 298:
“In the longer term, we also see a need for a strengthened forum for interparliamentary dialogue within the post-Brexit United Kingdom”.
The Interparliamentary Forum on Brexit was established as a direct result of these recommendations. The forum brings together the chairs of the committees scrutinising Brexit-related issues in Westminster and the devolved Administrations. In the House of Lords, this includes the EU Select Committee, the Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers Committee, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly of course cannot attend but officials come as observers. The forum has met five times so far and is meeting for a sixth today, here in the House of Lords as we speak. Those at the forum, whatever their views on the union or on Brexit, come together to discuss the Brexit process and the implications for the devolution settlement that flow from it. Participants have been clear that the combination of interesting agendas and the ability to meet and discuss matters with opposite numbers has been most valuable. Today it will discuss the Brexit developments of the past few days and will meet the Minister for the Constitution, Chloe Smith, to discuss intergovernmental relations.
In closing I ask the Minister my second question: does he regard this as a heathy development? Does he think it is a possible template for a necessary formal inter-parliamentary strand of the UK’s devolved structure?
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for the way he introduced this debate and I dedicate my contribution to the memory of Steffan Lewis AM, who died last Friday at the age of 34. In two brief years in the National Assembly, Steffan had already made a huge impact, not least with the White Paper, Securing Wales’ Future. That document, addressing issues which face Wales in the context of Brexit, gained cross-party support in the Assembly. Steffan Lewis saw quite clearly that Brexit, particularly in its most extreme manifestation, could have significant negative implications for the future relationships in these islands, partly because of the narrow, inward-looking nationalism that underpins much of the Brexit approach. This contrasts with the civic nationalism which we have carefully nurtured in Wales.
The Welsh nation is not a racial construct. We are a mongrel people, defined not by blood and race but by community, culture and values. Those values underpin an outward-looking set of beliefs which recognises everyone in Wales, whatever their language, colour or creed, as full and equal citizens of our country. Our values as a nation have run through our politics. It is no coincidence that Lloyd George led the fight to establish social security and Aneurin Bevan the NHS. Wales is a nation whose roots are deep in our European heritage. In terms of language, culture, religion and traditions, our identity is European and it is an identity we have no intention of abandoning. It is to safeguard our values, communities and culture that we have aspired to greater political self-determination—to greater independence, if you like. But independence is a relative concept and whereas every nation has a right to independence, it also has a responsibility towards its neighbours and the wider world.
Over the past two generations, Wales has secured a considerable degree of independence. In practical terms, we have our own independent education policies; likewise with roads and housing. We make our own laws and determine our own priorities but we also recognise that there are matters, such as environmental issues, which we cannot control alone but must be governed in larger units, be that on a world, a European or indeed a British level.
In determining this, the European concept of subsidiarity should always come into play: matters should be decided as close as possible to the communities on which those decisions impact. Today’s debate is timely, but one of the real dangers is that we see our relationships as a dipole between Brussels and London, rather than as a multilayered, decentralist structure driven by subsidiarity. In that way, we could easily find ourselves centralising on to a British level decisions that have been systematically decentralised over the past two decades within a European framework.
That is why there was so much grief in Cardiff and Edinburgh when we saw—in terms of agricultural policy, industrial development incentives and procurement rules—what was felt to be a power grab by London. This awoke all the old forebodings and generated unnecessary fear. The real danger is that we put into reverse all the gains we have made—in autonomy, identity, assuming responsibility and developing multilateral cultural links—and that we get sucked back into the vortex of a unified, centralised British state.
To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That, more than any other single factor, is what will drive the movement towards greater independence for Wales and Scotland, if that is what happens. It may well be that new structures can be developed in terms of a federal or confederal state which can appropriately serve nations—and indeed regions—with diverse identities, different challenges and our own aspirations. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, is relevant in that regard.
Over the past 12 months, during which Steffan Lewis knew of his bowel cancer, he continued his work with bravery and dedication. He refused to let his illness define his life. Only last month, he proposed Plaid Cymru’s amendment to the Labour Government’s Motion on the withdrawal agreement, spelling out why it should be rejected. To the credit of Labour Members, they recognised Steffan’s case and accepted his amendment.
In the wake of Tuesday’s vote, MPs across party lines may try to secure a sensible compromise, such as a model based on the UK retaining its customs union and single market relationship with the EU, and accepting the free movement of people, goods and money between the countries of Britain and the 27 EU member states as a way forward. If that is so, it will provide a framework within which Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—and indeed England—can develop an evolving relationship, facilitating the maximum degree of self-government to which their peoples aspire, while simultaneously enabling families, businesses and civic society to blossom without the artificial barriers which a blinkered 19th century approach to independence implies.
In conclusion, it is hugely ironic that it is in this context that a key to Britain’s future relationship with Europe may be found. It is an even greater sadness that Steff has not lived to see the relevance of his analysis become centre stage as we contemplate the future relationships of the nations of these islands.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on securing this debate. I also thank him and his colleagues in the Constitution Reform Group, including the Marquess of Salisbury, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others. They have at least been working on a growing problem which, by and large, has not been strategically addressed.
As we have sat in this House over the last few years, a number of noble Lords on the Front Bench have brought forward one constitutional Bill after another. We had several Welsh Bills and Scottish Bills as well as ones pertaining to Northern Ireland. At the other end of the Corridor we had English votes for English laws; we had referenda, which sometimes seemed to pop up without any real definition of when they should be introduced; and we had had a variety of proposals to reform your Lordships’ House. The underlying common denominator of all this is that there is no overarching plan. It is haphazard, and driven by events and pressures. There is no strategy involved in any of it. At least the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and his colleagues have been attempting to do something about that—not that I accept everything they say; I do not. At the same time, they are at least sitting down and making an effort. Other people, including on the committees of this House and in Parliament, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, have also made contributions.
However, the fact is that we have no clear idea of how things are to be done. For instance, there is no plan for how the devolved regions should account for the money that is provided to them by central government for their actions. There is no accountability. They can decide to contribute views or not. I said in another debate that it was like a giant ATM machine: devolved Ministers can draw out money, but they do not have to make any contributions on what they have done with it. I would like the Minister in his reply to address that.
Then we have the Sewel convention and other things that have developed. In addition, of course, we have the catastrophe back at home, with no devolved Government, no direct rule Ministers—nothing. It is all completely absent. If the backstop proposals were to be implemented, we would be in even worse shape, because we would have no representation in Europe as well. Talk about a democratic beheading—we have a clear example of it there.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, referenced the Joint Ministerial Committee. I have sat on that body, and I have to say that Whitehall Ministers turn up as if it was a chore. In other words, there is no appetite for it whatever. They turned up because they had to, and they normally sent not their number one but their number two or number three along to represent them. They had no interest in it—it was a nuisance—and that says it all. That has to be fixed, and it will not be fixed unless there is an overall plan.
The other thing that concerns me is referenda. We have had a number of them over the years. The two big ones on Europe were brought into being because of internal disputes within the two major parties. We had a referendum on AV, and referenda in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Again, it is all haphazard—there is no plan. A number of people are saying that we need another referendum to get out of our present difficulties. Take care; it is a very divisive thing. You would not know what the result of another referendum might be, and it could set up the pieces for a further Scottish referendum. I do not see how you could make a coherent argument against a second Scottish referendum if you have one on Europe again. There will also be the question about what you have on the ballot paper; it could be divisive and very unrealistic. You could have a border poll and a Scottish referendum both driven by a further referendum on our EU membership—so I hope that Members will consider that carefully.
There must be a serious discussion on the constitutional future of this country and its structures, not a continuation of the haphazard Bills that come before us, one after the other.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Lisvane secured this debate; I referred to the Act of Union Bill and its parent, the Constitutional Reform Group, in my speech in your Lordships’ House on 13 December. But what is the case for the union now, which is under threat from Brexit in both Scotland and Northern Ireland?
The former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown set out a compelling vision in rejecting Scottish independence, both in a speech on 10 March 2014 and in his book My Scotland, Our Britain. He rightly insisted that the issue is not simply about patriotism: both pro and anti-independence Scots could claim to be equally patriotic. Instead, he argued, the incontrovertible advantage of modern Britain is its 20th-century innovation: the pooling and sharing of risks and resources across the whole of the United Kingdom to ensure common welfare and decent standards of life for all citizens, regardless of where you live, through common, UK-wide old-age pensions, common UK social insurance—sick pay, health insurance and unemployment insurance—common UK child and family benefits, a common UK minimum wage, and a UK system of equalising resources, so that everyone has the same political, social and economic rights, and not simply equal civil and political rights.
With around 40% of UK GDP concentrated in London and the south-east of England, separatists have no answer to the great benefit of the United Kingdom: redistributing resources from its better to its less well-off parts and, through a UK-wide minimum wage and tax credits, guaranteeing a minimum family income and stopping regions and nations undercutting each other, thus preventing a damaging race to the bottom between the nations and regions within the UK.
Although England remains highly centralised and the English question has not been properly addressed, as it should be, the 1973 Kilbrandon royal commission made a convincing case against a separate English parliament which has never been rebutted. Such a federation of four units would be,
“so unbalanced as to be unworkable. It would be dominated by the overwhelming political importance and wealth of England”,
with,
“Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, together representing less than one fifth of the population”.
Instead, I believe in a modern federal United Kingdom, which is set out in the noble Lord’s Act of Union Bill. English interests could be better protected through regional devolution outside London—again, I suggested how that might be done in my speech on 13 December.
We should be wary of devolution in the form of “neoliberal outsourcing”, in line with the right’s ideological objective to shrink the Whitehall state, offloading as much responsibility as possible to individual citizens to fend for themselves, outsourcing to private providers and “subcontracting” tax and spending to devolved legislatures and cities. In that respect at least, the outcomes if not the ideologies of nationalism and neoliberalism can converge because, under both, the redistributive power of the United Kingdom state is either severed or severely stunted.
The great majority of individuals need the state on their side but not on their backs. They need active government which intervenes to curb market excess and market power. They need a social context to ownership. They need the assistance of strong communities. They need the solidarity which comes from acting collectively to exercise influence over the decisions which shape their lives and to experience the fulfilment of active citizenship. They need power to be decentralised and fairly distributed—which is precisely what the Act of Union Bill provides for. And much needed it will be in the current Brexit mess, not least to help hold our country together.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Lisvane for a timely broadening of the debate. Nevertheless, I shall talk mainly about Northern Ireland because it seems to me the most urgent. We are in great danger of flogging dead horses at present, because we are not too sure which horses are still alive—so be it.
The backstop is of course the fundamental feature of the debate on the Northern Irish situation at present, but in the background there is the Belfast agreement and the commitment of all parties to the principle of consent in any constitutional change. This is a treaty obligation that both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have accepted, and it has been fundamental to the peace process, which the EU has supported in many ways across, now, more than 20 years. If the backstop were activated, that would change the constitutional position by, in effect, excluding Northern Ireland—it is hoped, only temporarily—from the UK.
In very recent exchanges with the United Kingdom Government, the EU has indicated an aspiration to ensure that this situation does not arise and that, if it does, to work towards reaching an agreement on trade and, thereby, on the Irish border. That is admirable and realistic, but the phrasing of the commitment is still asymmetric. In their letter of 14 January—this Monday—to the Prime Minister, available on the Government’s website, Mr Tusk and Mr Juncker reaffirm their aspiration to avoid the backstop. So far, so good. They write:
“The Commission can also confirm the European Union’s determination to replace the backstop solution on Northern Ireland by a subsequent agreement that would”—
note the hypotheticals—
“ensure the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing”.
That is baffling. If their determination is shared by Her Majesty’s Government and the Republic of Ireland, why can the commitment not be made by all parties at this stage?
I realise that it has been affirmed time and again that future arrangements can be agreed only once the withdrawal agreement has been completed. But does this make any sense? Yes, to be sure that future arrangements can be implemented only at an appropriate time. But putting them beyond discussion and agreement and allowing that to undermine the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement reminds one of publicly insisting on red lines before negotiating. Surely there is too much at stake to allow this rigidity to derail agreement.
I have family both north and south of the Irish border. My family, including those who have served in this House and the other place, have long been liberal unionists so I am not tempted to support the DUP, least of all some aspects of its policies. I know in my bones what the loss of peace and good order would mean. If change in the Northern Ireland constitutional status happened by consent, in accordance with the Belfast agreement, so be it. I would support that, but I am at a loss to understand why the EU negotiators wish to risk the peace agreement they have supported for many years by allowing for the possibility of profound constitutional change that is not consented to as the Belfast agreement requires. Can the Minister shed any light on that by explaining why the Government have not managed to convey to the EU negotiators that this is effectively unconsented constitutional change?
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for securing this timely debate. In the past week, the business of the House and the other place has been taken up almost entirely by considering fairly fundamental aspects of the governance of this country. Some may think that this has been fine and has not caused great disruption, but considering that it has meant reviewing all possible methods of bringing about constitutional change, it was bound to give new life to all the arguments about further reforms in our constitutional settlement.
As emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that is particularly true for Scotland. This subject has a long history, of course, in which I always take an interest even if for no other reason than so many of my direct ancestors have been personally involved. Depending on your view, my family can be either credited or blamed for much that has happened in Scotland throughout her history. We were one of the signatories of the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, resisting the pretensions of Edward I. A little later, a member of my family known as the 1st Marquis was one of the first signatories of the Scottish Covenant in 1638, objecting to the impositions and taxes of Charles I. Then, in 1707, as President of the Council in the Scottish Parliament, we oversaw the passing of the Act of Union and the financial and economic benefit that stemmed from that. Even more recently, I could consider my grandfather, who got into a spot of bother in 1932 for suggesting that Scotland should benefit from an element of devolution similar to what we have today.
So I have followed in great detail all the devolution legislation that has come through this House. Once the original Scottish devolution Act had been passed, those who put it together adopted as their mantra that devolution is not an Act of Parliament but a process. From day one, the practical rules have been subject to tweaks, adjustments and memoranda of understanding. No doubt this has been a great boon to the civil servants involved and those in the Scottish Government for their daily workings, but it has probably worked quite well even for the Scottish Parliament. However, what I feel has been missing is any chance for the UK legislature to consider whether these things suited the settlement that Scotland had within the UK and the interests of the UK Parliament at the time they were introduced. We have of course considered them when we have periodically reconsidered the Scotland Act, but that has been very much later.
There are a number of issues over which there is current contention. I wonder if there is any way that my noble friend the Minister can give us an indication of the grounds on which the Government are pursuing the case in the Supreme Court. This seems to be a question of the competence of the Scotland Act 1998 as regards the devolution of powers over agriculture and fisheries that were, and still are, the responsibility of the European Union. Section 29(2)(a) of the Act states:
“A provision is outside that competence”—
of the Scottish Parliament if—
“it would form part of the law of a country or territory other than Scotland, or confer … functions exercisable otherwise than in or as regards Scotland”,
which at the present moment still applies to both fisheries and agriculture. For the outcome, we will have to wait for the judgment of the court, but the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has put his finger on a vital component which is needed: we need respect from both sides and it applies in both ways.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those of others to congratulate and thank the noble lord, Lord Lisvane, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this Motion. The subject is an important one. In all the discussions and debates about Brexit, we have perhaps not sufficiently addressed the consequences of Brexit for the integrity of the United Kingdom.
The problem of retaining an open border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic when that becomes the only land border between the United Kingdom and the European Union has of course received a great deal of attention. The Prime Minister has been resolute in the pursuit of arrangements to ensure that the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom should be preserved and ensured. But the arrangements are complex and to some extent artificial, as well as controversial, and of course they are part of an agreement which has now been overwhelmingly rejected by the House of Commons.
I follow the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, in reminding the House that Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the country in that the Good Friday agreement, like the Anglo-Irish agreement of November 1985, in which I played a part, guarantees that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom unless and until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland want it and decide to vote for it. Whether that time will ever come, none of us can say, but it seems that it is likely to come sooner than it otherwise might when the United Kingdom is going to leave or has left the European Union.
Then it has to be remembered that in Scotland there was a majority for remaining in the European Union in the referendum of June 2016. That was not just an echo of the “auld alliance” between Scotland and France. It could become a significant factor in any future referendum on Scottish independence, although like other speakers I should be a little surprised if that took the number of supporters for independence over the threshold of 50%. Scotland would find it a cold place to be outside the UK and the European Union.
I am not at all sure that I wish to enshrine these matters in a written constitution, which is like a great statute. Such a statute would become like a large building which cannot be changed when the conditions outside it or the requirements being made of it change. We need to go rather carefully when trying to freeze or fossilise the existing constitutional arrangement because it then becomes in a sense a dead thing and unable to adapt to changes in life, changes in requirements and changes in circumstances outside. I approach that with a certain amount of scepticism.
The union that is the United Kingdom was created and developed by successive changes made over centuries. It was not set out in advance in a written constitution, but has developed in response to the needs of the day. The United Kingdom has been a source of strength and benefit to all its constituent parts, as one can see from the number of Scottish people who have made such a large contribution to our public and political life. It has achieved a strength, standing and an influence in our relations with other countries which none of the constituent countries would have had on their own. It has also remained a steady beacon of freedom and democracy and of political stability and maturity—living together, as it were—to which other countries have looked with respect and envy. We take it for granted because it has always been there for us. However, there are times, and the present is one of them, when while looking at our constitutional arrangements, we should be counting our blessings and actively seeking to protect and preserve them.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the House is pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is replying to this debate as it holds him in very high regard. The only surprising thing is that the noble Lord finds it possible to continue being a member of a Government who, in Brexit, are systematically destroying his own life’s work. If I may say so, he gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “semi-detached”. He appears to be attached to this Government in the way that the moon is attached to the sun, but we are none the less glad that he is speaking today. That is because he harks back to the days when Conservatives were indeed conservative and observed the dictum of Edmund Burke that:
“A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation”;
but his underlying belief was that it should be the minimum change necessary to preserve a state which, by a long process of organic formation, works pretty well.
In Great Britain—Ireland is entirely different—that is pretty much the way we have handled constitutional reform in this country since the Napoleonic wars, which finally ended Jacobitism and the threat to the Hanoverian settlements. But Brexit has brought an end to all that because for the first time in modern history, the Conservative Party has stopped being conservative and has in fact become a revolutionary party that is seeking to undermine the entire fabric of our existing constitutional settlement, with an impact that will go well beyond Brexit. As other noble Lords have said, it will probably threaten the union with Northern Ireland and possibly in due course the union with Scotland too. It is perfectly conceivable that if Brexit proceeds, England will be a single unitary state within the lifetime of many of us present in this Chamber. Of course, that would make sense philosophically because it is the expression of an extreme form of English nationalism that we have not seen in recent history.
The question that is preoccupying Parliament at large at the moment is how we can stop that process democratically. It looks to me as though that will take the form of a referendum, in which I hope very much that the British people, having seen the kind of Brexit on offer and the threat it poses to their way of life, will actually vote to remain in the European Union.
However, the underlying social pressures and tensions that have led to Brexit are partly to do with the inadequate aspects of our constitutional arrangements and the way they deal with political and social issues. They need reform, and a good Burkean would be paying serious and particular attention at the moment—as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has done—to the big issue of the government of England. While we have had significant and beneficial reform in the government of Wales and Scotland and have brought an end to a virtual civil war within the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland—I pay huge tribute to John Major, Tony Blair and a generation of politicians in Ireland and Northern Ireland—the government of England has not undergone substantial reform of any kind since Redcliffe-Maud and the big reforms to county and local government in the early 1970s. It is not working well at all.
I will make three brief points on what I believe should happen. We need to reinforce substantially the devolution moves that have taken place in recent years. The single best reform to the government of England in the last 20 years was the creation of the mayoralty of London—a strong executive office with substantial devolution of funding and autonomous powers, accountable to an elected assembly—which has transformed the government of London. The quality of our public services in London, particularly our infrastructure and especially transport, have been changed for the better beyond all recognition because of the introduction of this very welcome measure of devolution. We need the same in all the city regions of England and in the wider regions, and it needs to be done on some kind of agreed basis. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to Yorkshire. There is at the moment a massive stand-off between the Government and local authorities and responsible leaders in Yorkshire, including the mayor of South Yorkshire, on this very issue. It needs to be resolved, city region by city region, with substantial devolution taking place.
Secondly, on finance, you cannot divorce devolution from money, in the way that you can never divorce government from money. The person who holds the budget is the person who wields the power. A good part of the reason why the settlements in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London have been so successful is the substantial devolution of funding. Ever since the settlement that replaced the poll tax with this extremely inadequate council tax, which now is pretty much inoperable as an effective property tax, there has not been an effective funding base for local government.
Thirdly, we need properly to codify this in a new federal constitution, which I think should involve a senate replacing the existing House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said that we suffer from imperial condescension. I do not believe that that is a complete explanation.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Please could the noble Lord bring his remarks to a conclusion?
Lord Adonis
I am bringing them to a conclusion.
The Government in London also suffer from colonial complacency towards England, and we suffer from ideological idiocy in respect of Brexit. Both undermine the body politic and need reversing as a matter of urgency.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on such a timely debate. I have been exposed to constitutional issues for a long time as a senior civil servant, special adviser, Minister and Member of this House. I have always had reservations about our unwritten constitution, once described by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, as the “good chaps” system of government. I thought we were moving away from this with the constitutional changes introduced by the new Labour Government after 1997, in which I was involved.
It is worth reminding ourselves what a Government can achieve in these areas when they put their mind to it. Devolved Administrations were introduced, although regional assemblies for England were not pursued; a Human Rights Act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law; freedom of information legislation reduced Whitehall’s secrets; most of the hereditary Peers were removed from this House, although our functions remained unchanged; and stronger oversight of elections was introduced. For a while it looked as though this programme would take the UK forward on a reasonably agreed basis, but Brexit has shown otherwise. Enabling major changes to international treaties through populist referendums has exposed our representative parliamentary democracy to serious dangers. Until the last 48 hours, Parliament has proved incapable of stopping two misguided Conservative Prime Ministers seriously damaging our country through vain attempts to unify their own political party. The result was well captured by a leader article in the Economist on 22 December, which commented on how,
“a rich, peaceful and apparently stable country can absent-mindedly set fire to its constitutional arrangements without any serious plan for replacing them”.
That seems to sum up pretty well where we have managed to get to.
We have to start considering the major constitutional weaknesses exposed by the whole Brexit fiasco. We badly need to reshape the current constitutional settlement and the relationship between the centre and the nations and regions. We need one that includes much more effective curbs on the Executive. For a start we need to reconsider the size, functions and character of both Houses of Parliament and to better define their relationship both to the Executive and to the devolved Administrations and English regions—a sadly neglected area. We now have no effective Government in Northern Ireland, a restive Scottish Government with independence still on its mind and no consistency of approach to major English city regions. Reforming the functions, composition and size of this House is long overdue. We should be changing it to an indirectly elected and partially appointed senate with a strong regional and nation component.
The pressure for some kind of broad-spectrum constitutional debate seems inevitable. The more we can do to generate that, the better. This debate will need to involve all parts of the UK and to consider the relationship between government at all levels—UK, regional and nation, and local. The neglect of local government in England in particular is a disgrace. Some new forum to begin work on this agenda is badly needed, because I cannot see either of the two main political parties in their present state tackling an agenda of this kind.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on securing this most timely of debates. He brings a depth of knowledge to your Lordships’ House and is also a fellow Celt, which adds to his appeal. I agree with the contention implicit in the Motion before us today. But Brexit was destined to pose a perceived threat to the stability of our precious union because some nationalists were bound to use it for that purpose. The Scottish National Party has set the bar predictably low. But against the expectations of many, I argue that one of the few positives of the Brexit process so far—I say this as an outer—is that it has strengthened the union.
Further, I believe that Northern Ireland’s status as a valued component part of the United Kingdom has rarely been more secure. The debate around the so-called backstop to avoid the threat of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic has been passionate. The issue remains unresolved, but I do not have time to dwell on its finer details.
However, I take grave issue with those who claim that Brexit poses a threat to the hard-won peace on the island of Ireland. Such statements are not only wrong but opportunistic and insulting. The backstop debate has led many parliamentarians, both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, to speak up for Northern Ireland, defend the Belfast agreement and remind those in other parts of the United Kingdom of the right of the people of the Province to self-determination. This has been very welcome, and I am grateful.
In contrast to Scotland, there has not been a constant demand in Northern Ireland for a referendum on our future within the United Kingdom. Yet many nationalists by definition still want a united Ireland and are perfectly entitled to that opinion. But most people, from both unionist and nationalist backgrounds, are more interested in Brexit and share a desire for a devolved Government to be restored to Northern Ireland.
It is a constitutional outrage that this month marks two years since the Northern Ireland Executive collapsed. In the intervening period, local people have been left without accountable Ministers taking decisions on their behalf. Our schools and hospitals, along with much else, have been left to spiral into decline. Your Lordships will accept that no Government, Labour or Conservative, would allow this to happen in any other part of the United Kingdom. So why is it allowed to happen in Northern Ireland?
We who live there deserve so much better than this. Our children are entitled to receive the best possible quality of education, delivered in properly funded schools. For two years, they have had to settle for second best, with parents and teachers often having to dip into their own pockets to pay for materials. The sick and the infirm are entitled to receive the best possible quality of healthcare, provided in properly funded hospitals. For two years, they have had to settle for second best, as waiting lists have lengthened ever further.
There is a widely held view that Her Majesty’s Government will make no further efforts to restore devolution in Northern Ireland until after the Brexit deadline on 29 March. I suspect that the Government’s dependence on the Democratic Unionist Party to keep them in office and to get Brexit through is not unrelated to that. This was clearly evidenced last night in another place, to the DUP’s obvious delight.
However, I ask the Minister directly to convey my message to his colleagues, in his characteristically polite manner. The Brexit process is a mess—I do not need to remind the Minister of that. As a result, there are growing rumours that the Government will have no option but to request an extension of Article 50 from the European Union. I believe this scenario will become more apparent in the coming days, when Members of Parliament gather to debate and vote on new ways forward, almost certainly including fresh negotiations in Brussels, which will require yet more time. Should an extension of Article 50 be deemed necessary, I implore Ministers not to use this as an excuse to further delay attempts to restore a properly accountable Northern Ireland Executive.
Initial suggestions were that the Article 50 extension would be until 1 July. This morning, I read several reports that it could now be until the end of this year or even beyond. The people of Northern Ireland cannot and should not be expected to wait any longer for a restoration of devolved government to return to the political agenda. Otherwise, the warm words of Ministers, in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere, about how much they supposedly value Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, will, I fear, blow cold.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and I thank him for his wise words. Reflecting on these matters, as one often does, after 27 years in the House of Commons and seven years in the wilderness—as they call it nowadays—and then coming into your Lordships’ House in 2004, I have become increasingly depressed by the deterioration of the quality of British politics and British party politics in making decisions to help the citizens of this country. It started, sadly, with Margaret Thatcher, although at least she supported the single market in the European negotiations, even if it was partly because she thought it an important business matter—fair enough—and did not necessarily support its other aspects. More recently, I have witnessed the unbelievable deterioration of politics, with the catastrophe of the Brexit result and the Government’s handling of it.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for introducing this debate today and making such excellent and wise suggestions about future possibilities of the federal union type. I look forward to seeing his Bill flourish.
This matter is so severe now in this country because we cannot get agreement between the parties on any substantial matter—we cannot really get agreement on anything. Now, at long last, Theresa May is beginning the exercise of asking to discuss these matters with the other parties—which she should have done ages ago—because we have reached a huge impasse and have no solution. That is the background.
For many years now, there has been no agreement on anything in British politics, including party funding and changing the voting system from the crude, primitive first past the post system to a PR system, as most countries in Europe have. I live in France as well, which is an exception. There, they have the two-round system, which mitigates the tyranny of the first past the post result.
I welcome the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Young, on the Front Bench today to give us the wisdom of his answers and to make constructive suggestions for the future. The situation is very grim indeed.
If the Whips had allowed me to speak for 15 minutes today, I would have spent five minutes on what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, and five minutes on what my noble friend Lord Warner said. I thank them for their speeches. However, in the four minutes left to me, I will conclude with some comments on their observations.
We have to start now to reach agreement in this country at long last. Can Mrs May do it? I was astonished—and said so at the time; I am not being wise after the event—when, immediately after the referendum result, she said, “Brexit means Brexit”. Given her authority, psychologically, as a new Prime Minister, and one without a general election result but rather elected by her own party’s members, she could have explained that it was a complicated matter. She could have suggested going back to discuss how we handle this with all the parliamentary organs and parties, and with everybody in the country. She could have said that we needed a full and proper analysis of the Brexit result. It was, after all, an advisory referendum. Even though Cameron promised that he would insist on carrying it through, that did not apply to the subsequent Prime Minister.
Then, following the election on 8 June, the Prime Minister lost the mandate to carry on with the Brexit negotiations but said that she would carry on in a totally artificial and provocative combination with the DUP, which is, I am sad to say, one of the least popular parties in the House of Commons. That party is based on Protestant extremism and the denial of women’s rights, for God’s sake; it is amazing that Mrs May even considered linking up with it just to provide an artificial majority. In a country with a written constitution, that would surely have been declared inadmissible by the augurs of the state who decide on constitutional propriety. But we do not have that. Instead, we have party, constitutional and parliamentary anarchy.
We must break through that anarchy, and we now have the opportunity to do so, in resisting Brexit and probably having a second referendum if Parliament itself cannot decide finally. Perhaps the public would accept that, and we would then have a chance to restore the quality, value and valour of the British political system in England, the main country, and in the devolved parts. If not, this anarchy and chaos will continue, and we will continue in a downward spiral into I know not what. I hope that will not happen.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, this debate has demonstrated just how timely and important it is that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, introduced it. We should all be grateful to him for that. The debate so far has emphasised that we are in a bit of mess with our constitution. There has been a lot of piecemeal, pragmatic activity in our recent history, but where has been the sense of strategy? What is the objective towards which we are working? Where is the road map?
I have an overriding conviction that the most challenging aspect of political life is that we live in a world that is totally interdependent. The challenge for government and political leadership is to come to terms with that and to find a way in which we enable the British people to play a constructive and full part in meeting that reality. It seems to me that anything else is escapism from fundamental reality. I also accept that, in the impersonal and technological age in which we live, in which the very thought of global interdependence is intimidating to so many people, there is a yearning for identity. What has gone wrong is that we see these two things in conflict. They are not. We should encourage a sense of identity and look for ways in which people can find their identity.
The next challenge is for leadership to explain that there is no way we can find a successful part in the world, or have a stable world, simply on the basis of identity. We have to co-operate, and the challenge now is to see how these people with different identities come together and work in the interests of humanity. That is the challenge which has been brought home by our agonising over Europe.
What is this identity? We have to be honest with ourselves. I am conscious and glad that I am a Scot and English. My mother was a Scot and my father was English. It is interesting that they came together in an international context. They always said that learning to bring their two cultures together in their personal life was part of understanding the challenge I have just described.
I come down in favour of a convention on our constitution in which we can give strategic consideration to all these matters and see how far what we have shapes up to the challenge and how we might make it better. I know that people who look at and talk about this matter have an anxiety—it has come out in the debate—first, about the English dimension and the fact that the English, cussedly, do not seem to have an English identity and, secondly, that England is so large. A regional approach that gave real significance and political structures to regions within England would help resolve that issue.
Living in Cumbria for the past 25 years—having been very much part of the south-east before that—has demonstrated to me that people have a strong Cumbrian identity which can be related to a northern identity. These are the kinds of issues which would come out, and with which we could begin to grapple, in a convention.
I end with an anecdote. Immediately after the referendum my younger grandson, who was then 13, coming up to 14, rang me in an activated frame of mind because they had had in his comprehensive school a mock referendum and 80% had voted in favour of remain. He was struck by this and said to me, “Grandpa, I want to ask you a question. Was your mother Scottish?”. He had not known her; she had died before he was born. I said, “She certainly was Scottish”. She had become very much part of England during the war and so on, but she was Scottish. He said, “I thought so. Will you give me a promise that if Scotland goes independent and remains committed to staying in the European Union you will immediately apply for dual nationality?”.
Lord Chartres (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, recalled the irritation of Governments when Parliament entered a kind of seminar state. However, I have found this seminar immensely instructive and have learned a great deal.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on the question of identity. The Motion refers to stability but, as we all know, we face a time of huge instability—not only the political instabilities of which we are all aware but a planetary instability. This is the first generation of people who have incontrovertible evidence of how much damage is being done to the planet and perhaps the last generation which will be able to do anything substantial about it. So we are facing not only political instability but planetary instability.
One of the forces making for instability is a reassertion of national identities—an immensely powerful elemental force. For example, it is a fact of great significance that the former subjects of the Soviet empire asserted themselves against its power as peoples with particular histories, loyalties and allegiances and not in the name of some abstract concept of individual rights. This widespread search for identity—movingly evoked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd—has surfaced in the Brexit debate and in the difficulties faced by the EU in applying the west European model to the liberated countries of eastern Europe.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that in our own islands the resurgence of national identities in Scotland, Ireland and Wales, which preceded Brexit, has had consequences which have enriched our life as a United Kingdom. The various devolution measures may have been piecemeal but they were a response to the new reality. I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken that this leaves us with the need to face the consequences of this huge elemental force for England.
I was Bishop of Stepney at the time of the communal riots in the East End when people were going around insisting on the need to respect the culture of British Bangladeshis. In one school I was confronted by a furious teenager who said, “What’s my effing culture then, Bish?”. Your Lordships can imagine that these words have reverberated and stayed with me over the years. He felt a real sense of cultural loss and poverty which did not dispose him to tolerance but rather to lashing out. You cannot exorcise the evil of hatred of the other by creating a cultural and spiritual vacuum. You have to recognise its reality and build institutions around it which allow it to express itself in a constructive way. If we are to live harmoniously and creatively together in a genuinely pluralistic culture, we have to recognise the power of shared identity and familiar customs in our common life.
As other noble Lords have said, the devolution project must be extended to England, with a renewed attempt to re-localise decision-making, especially now in the light of the experience of the referendum campaign, which revealed how many people feel marginal to an overcentralised, remote political process.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for initiating this debate.
My overall conclusion is that there will be no effects of Brexit other than it being weaponised by individual political parties for whatever they see as their own advantage, but I believe there will be unforeseen consequences of Brexit which may now be coming to the surface. All my political life, devolution has been an issue. I began in the middle 1960s. Gwynfor Evans had been elected as a Welsh nationalist Member of Parliament and in November 1967 Winnie Ewing became a Scottish National Party MP in a by-election caused by Harold Wilson putting Tom Fraser into the chairmanship of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, having learned nothing about losing by-elections from Lord Sorensen. Winnie Ewing won. She went on to have a long and distinguished career in Europe and became known as “Madame Ecosse”. I say that by way of background.
I am not particularly a fan of devolution. I take a very similar view to Gordon Brown about the advantages of countries and nations working together. That is one reason why I am a strong supporter of the EU. However, I also counsel people to believe that the people who voted in the referendum were not concerned about the United Kingdom. In East Anglia, they were concerned about immigration, taking back control and what Brussels might do to them. As an active campaigner in the referendum debate, I did not hear Scotland or Wales mentioned on a single occasion.
People have mentioned our precious union. That is rather like the special relationship. We often mention it here, but you never hear it mentioned in Washington. I am afraid the precious union does not play to the gallery in East Anglia at all. As far as people there are concerned, Scotland is a very different country, as are Wales and Ireland.
Nobody seems to have quite twigged to the fact that there is a big difference between Scotland and Ireland over Brexit. The difference is simply this: one day there will be a vote, and if Ireland votes for reunification, Northern Ireland will automatically become part of the European Union. It will not need to apply because it is covered by the German Democratic Republic convention that a country that unites itself peacefully will have automatic entry. If the island of Ireland united, it would join the EU instantly. It could not be stopped under the treaties and the way the EU is structured. Scotland would have a very different perspective. As my friends in Madrid will tell you, it would be a long and difficult negotiation because Madrid, which does not recognise Kosovo, for instance, is not going to set any precedent that might damage its internal cohesion, which is as fragile as ours. That is possibly one of the unforeseen consequences.
I would like to see a greater sense of solidarity in the United Kingdom. We seem to spend all our time talking about devolving and getting away from each other. We will soon be the most overgoverned nation in Europe. At the moment, that trophy is held by Belgium, where I live part of the time. All I will say is that for every layer of government, there is an added layer of confusion, so on the settlement, let us settle down and leave it for a time because nothing is to be gained from constantly meddling with it. It may need tidying at the edges, but I do not think it needs fundamentally looking at again.
My final word is to a party not represented in this Chamber. I wish that the other parties in Northern Ireland would get together and get the Administration in Northern Ireland up and running again. It is very difficult to treat Northern Ireland seriously when you see parties deliberately stopping the development of the democratic process there. If they believe in Ireland, I ask them to respect the people of Ireland.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Lisvane for this vital discussion. The Brexit settlement, whatever its final nature, has had to include discussions about Gibraltar. It is technically outside the United Kingdom, but the Gibraltar discussions have an impact on Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. The attitudes and approaches of the United Kingdom Government or, more correctly, Her Majesty’s Government, have an implication for territories where Her Majesty remains sovereign and Head of State. It is not just a fact of the nature of our unwritten constitution; it is also about the nature of the constitution that we display beyond the borders of the United Kingdom to the territories where Her Majesty is sovereign.
In this Parliament—certainly in another place—we are used to what might be called disputatious debate, where things can be aggressively said across the Chamber, one to the other. It can be extremely distracting, and the tone of how that debate is conducted has affected whether we believe that this United Kingdom will hold together, which has wider implications. It could be said that this Brexit process has caused distracted debasement of our national political order. The tone of what should have been the representation of the best of British democracy, as seen abroad by Her Majesty’s other territories, has instead been a dogfight of refusals and an inability sometimes to accept and consider compromises in the national interest or to hear one another through. It is even possible that we might suffer the greatest broken promise of Brexit: based on party arguments, Westminster could be seen as untrusted and incapable of serving the national interest. I am sure that is not a model that Her Majesty would wish her other territories to follow, given that we set them free in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s to follow a model that allowed proper politics and proper democracy based on compromises.
We often speak about the importance of soft power to the United Kingdom—soft power framed in great institutions such as the NHS, the BBC, our archives, our museums, our universities and, of course, Parliament. If the display of this important soft power in a world that needs the reality of that soft power to be for its benefit, not for its dismissal, is one that cannot settle issues of union, collaboration and partnership, and even our relationship with our nearest neighbour—by country, let alone by community—this Parliament will have failed in the soft realities of Brexit. This is not about how we leave the European Union but about how we conduct the processes by which we leave, the relationships between the parts of the United Kingdom and the display of what this mature democracy should be for the nations that are forming, from fledgling beginnings, what they want to be—the ideal model of responsible and honourable leadership.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hastings. His reference to the dogfight of refusals emanating from the Palace of Westminster to our friends around the world will ring with me for some time.
I add my voice to the echo in the Chamber by thanking my noble friend Lord Lisvane for securing this important debate—what immaculate timing. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I am 50% Scottish and 50% English. I live two-thirds of the time in England. My family name is thoroughly Scottish but my title is English, and my heart is in the north. I feel quite well qualified to speak in this debate, but noble Lords will understand that my comments relate principally to Scotland.
The Scottish National Party is the largest party in the Scottish Government. It does not have an overall majority, but its declared objective is, without question, independence. It is in the name. It already frustrates the UK Government’s attempts and endeavours wherever it can. While it is the largest party at Holyrood, Scotland was bitterly divided in 2014 during the independence referendum. Particularly bitter was the division in the communities—particularly rural communities—and it was even more harmful among many families.
Rather than trying to trumpet the possible advantages of independence, there was far too much anti-union marketing in that campaign. It was aimed at the heart, not the head. Visions were displayed of a popular film actor, swathed in tartan and wielding a claymore, reminding those who read the posters of that magnificent victory at Bannockburn approximately 700 years ago. The nationalist party in Scotland feeds on all this for its popularity and support.
All that said, we must not forget that, like Northern Ireland, Scotland voted to remain in 2016, with 55% in favour of doing so. It is an unfortunately easy stick with which to drum the rhythm beat of Westminster-bashing, but Scotland did vote that way and we must respect it and try to understand why. It suits their agenda—a subject so divisive anyway. So, as the Brexit debate unfolds, or cascades, in front of us, we must expect a greater threat to union stability. It will continue to feed the beast of division north of the border.
To counter this threat to the union, we need to build a stronger relationship among all the member countries. In an era of devolving powers, we—the union as represented in Westminster—must decide what we want from the union and, much more importantly, what member countries want from Westminster. Only through appreciation of what the union has to offer each of its parts can we hope to build a positive relationship. Let us take the opportunity of this divided moment to lay bare the strengths and frustrations of our union before perhaps we attempt to rewrite—or, rather, to write—our constitution.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, originally I did not intend to speak but quite a number of misleading statements concerning my party have been made during this debate and they should not go unanswered.
I have no doubt that Brexit has presented a great challenge to the people of the United Kingdom and a great challenge to the Government. However, it was decided by the people of the United Kingdom that the UK should leave the EU, and that must be honoured. One could of course ask how we got there. We did not get there by chance. Looking back over history, I was reminded that a certain Nick Clegg walked out of the Commons on 26 February 2008 when the then Speaker, Michael Martin, refused to call a Liberal Democrat amendment demanding a referendum on the EU. Another Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament was then expelled from the Chamber. In their 2010 election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats called for a national vote on UK membership of the EU. The only problem was that, when they got it, they did not like the result, but of course that is not how democracy works. When you call a referendum and ask the people their view, you should respect the will of the people.
During the previous debate on Brexit, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said that I had suggested that we should discount the 88% of the nationalists who voted against Brexit. I did not say that they should be discounted; I said that 56% of the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain and 44% for Brexit, but 66% of unionists voted for Brexit. I remind this House that seven Members in another place were elected and the only barrier to them coming to the United Kingdom Parliament is the barrier that they themselves have erected. They can certainly speak for the 88% of nationalists but I am proud to speak as a unionist. I believe that the Brexit vote was taken not as a regional vote but as a vote for the whole of the United Kingdom.
There was also mention of the threat of violence. That is a very serious matter to raise. Coming from a part of the country and from a family that have endured the reality of violence and the murder of my loved ones, I suggest that we should not even be talking about the threat of violence if the Government continue with Brexit.
This is a serious matter and we are faced with a problem. The Prime Minister has offered to have talks across all the parties but the leader of the Labour Party has slammed that offer as a stunt. I believe that all parties are obliged by the people to seek a way forward to gain a resolution to this vital issue. She has offered talks and it would be remiss if we did not take them up in a constructive way, seeking a way forward for the people of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, in my youth, the union was strong. Not only had the four nations survived two world wars side by side but there was a community of interest that bound people together. Coal miners faced the same hazards in pits across Britain. The Gresford hymn is still played and sung annually at the Durham Miners’ Gala to commemorate the 266 miners killed underground at the Gresford pit in 1934. Steelworkers from Merthyr to Shotton, Sheffield and Motherwell had common interests, and workers in the shipyards of Belfast and Glasgow, Liverpool and the Tyne shared common dangers.
However, as those great UK-wide industries declined and departed, the solidarity of the union weakened. Devastated communities were left isolated—high and dry. Then the European project got under way. European development funds underpinned the economies of areas in decline, and nowhere has benefited more than Wales. European structural funds have invested more than £4 billion in supporting many thousands of jobs and creating new enterprises. Europe helped to stabilise the union at a time of profound economic and social change.
Devolution has played an important part in creating stability. In Wales we regard Sir John Redwood not so much as the architect of devolution but as its cause. As Secretary of State between 1993 and 1995, two years before the 1997 referendum, he attacked the non-governmental organisations delivering services in Wales with Thatcherite zeal, halved public funding to the Welsh Development Agency and cut his own Welsh Office staff, outsourcing to the private sector. He banned the use of the Welsh dragon on a leaflet entitled Wales in Europe and refused to second staff to ensure a Welsh presence in Brussels. He boasted that he had returned £100 million of the funding allocated to Wales, unspent, to the Treasury. He travelled home to Wokingham every night to avoid staying in Wales, refused to sign documents in the Welsh language because he did not understand them, and his rendition of the Welsh national anthem remains a YouTube classic that is very dear to our hearts. Therefore, we thank him for ensuring for us the slim majority of 0.3% that brought devolution to Wales two years after his regime, and we wish him a similar outcome for his dreams in the ERG.
It is that same contempt—that imperial condescension, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, put it, or colonial complacency, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, described it—which has been exhibited in the Brexit negotiations. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, pointed out, the devolved Administrations were not consulted. The Joint Ministerial Committee did not meet for eight months, the joint letter written by Mark Drakeford and Mike Russell in protest on behalf of Wales and Scotland was ignored and the recommendations by the committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, were put on the shelf. It is not surprising that the Government struggled and, in the case of Scotland, failed to get legislative consent to the withdrawal Bill.
Brexit involves abandoning EU mechanisms that have delivered the most generous regional assistance that Wales has ever seen in favour of a shared prosperity fund of indeterminate size and effect. This fund will be in the partisan political control of a UK Government, dominated by England, whose instincts are, as my noble friend Lord Wallace pointed out, incorrigibly centralist. I do not think Wales will get a fair deal. European funds have been distributed on the basis of need but I strongly suspect that this shadowy new fund will be distributed, like the Barnett formula, on a crude headcount.
In the last year we have observed the abandonment by the Westminster Government of exciting plans for the Swansea tidal lagoon and the electrification of the railway to Swansea. Japanese investment is under threat in the proposed new power station at Wylfa, as we discussed earlier today. Agricultural support is not guaranteed beyond 2020. Jaguar Land Rover, Ford, Vauxhall, Toyota and Airbus—all industries with vital outlets in Wales—have announced plans to move investment into Europe. As for steel, Anthony Taylor, the former mayor of Port Talbot and a steelworker for 39 years, told the Financial Times last March that a hard Brexit would be disastrous for the local economy:
“We are going to have to compete in markets that we are not big enough to compete in. It’s OK to say we will take back control, but control of what? It makes me a bit a nervous to see ministers going around the world trying to sign trade deals with anybody and everybody. It doesn't look good”.
Independence has not been a strong sentiment in Wales. It was a passion that dared not speak its name. A recent analysis has shown that in the 20 years between 1997 and 2017 the word “independence” appeared 150 times in the SNP manifestos but only 15 times in the manifestos of Plaid Cymru. It was therefore a sign of these Brexit times that Adam Price, who recently defeated Leanne Wood for the leadership of Plaid, campaigned on an independence platform and wrested the leadership from her.
I wish the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, whom I congratulate on getting this debate, well. I will certainly study it and I promise to respect it in the morning. However, if Brexit happens, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in believing that the movement for separation will grow. I hesitate to talk about Northern Ireland since I once asked the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, what was wrong with a united Ireland, and he told me to wash my mouth out. However, a special relationship between Northern Ireland and the EU through the Republic of Ireland could have a very positive benefits for the people and economy of that Province. The special economic zone of Shenzhen, founded in 1982 on the borders of Hong Kong, has caused a market town of 30,000 to grow into a metropolis of nearly 13 million people. We talked on Tuesday in this Chamber about the flood of expensive English lawyers who have already joined the Irish legal profession in Dublin to protect their existing businesses in Europe. Belfast could attract them and other leading service industries for the same reason. A referendum on the border is only a generation away—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, will respect its outcome. There may be much attraction then for a prosperous Northern Ireland seeking at least a confederation with the south.
Thirteen of the 27 countries of the EU have smaller populations and economies than Scotland, and five are smaller than Wales. If Brexit happens, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to envisage a successful confederation of Celtic states as part of the single European market and in a customs union. There was a time when the United Kingdom was more united and devolution seemed just as far away. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and I should resume our talks, adjourned in 1967, for the formation of an alliance of Welsh radicals.
Brexit, which makes people poorer, will weaken the bonds and, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just pointed out, adds to the instability that the many problems of the modern world present us with now.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak immediately after a Welshman and sitting directly under the magisterial presence of another one whose speech beguiled us and perhaps raised the level of our thinking to a noble vision of what can be achieved if the will is there.
This time last year, I was cutting my teeth in the brutal world of politics, of which I had no experience whatever, out of my depth, swimming against the tide and trying hard to understand what was happening in what was then the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. What a place to begin to familiarise yourself with due process. It is process that I would like to concentrate upon, picking up on remarks that have been made from around the Chamber about how we go about taking forward a discussion of issues as complex as this. I will not repeat things that have been said in varying ways, although I will want to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane—a good Welsh place of origin, if I may say so; I can recommend a lovely place for us to eat together some time when I visit there—for raising our sights. We have all been groping around in the dark and plodding along a path whose destination at this stage we have not yet identified, but he has raised our sights and reminded us that, when all this trouble and strife is over, there is going to be a world waiting to be recreated, relationships that have to be mended and an ongoing story that has to be told.
My clear remembrance of some of the discussions a year ago on the withdrawal Bill, Clause 11 in particular, gives me the substance of what I want to share now. When Clause 11 appeared in that proposed legislation, it showed just how out of touch the Government were. Instantly there rose to arms the Law Society, the Hansard Society, the Bar Council and the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House—all of them indicating that it simply could not work. For a long time, having promised us a resolution of the contradictions that had been identified, the Government were not forthcoming with a suggested alternative. It was on Report, as many will remember, that eventually things in fact got rewritten.
The changes were so radical that the original now is lost and for the attention of archaeologists in a thousand years’ time—but the basic element within it was a spirit of compromise in order to reach the new Clause 11. I remember working with David Lidington, Mark Drakeford and Michael Russell, all of us trying our hardest to give our attention to the document on restructuring Wales, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. It was the work of Steffan Lewis, whose memory I too want to honour. This remarkable young man gave us a White Paper showing a negotiating position within six months of the referendum. Is that not what the national Government should have been giving us—material to work with?
As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, that negotiating position was formulated before red lines were drawn. We might have had to come to that, but this was open and embracing. We looked at that, recognising that, in the eventual Clause 11, consideration would have to be given to all those areas where commonalities cross borders. We recognised that, out of the 120 or so areas, over 100 could be managed quite easily with existing modalities, mechanisms and arrangements. There were 20 or so that would need special frameworks within which we would have to sort things out—and we pledged to achieve that. We recognised that the Joint Ministerial Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred, was really down on its uppers. Nobody was happy with it. The splendid briefing paper we received from the Library mentions the need to beef that up. It needs to be beefed up; it does not have to be second-rate people coming along to it in a spirit of boredom and ennui.
So there we were, discussing, negotiating and coming forward with something which the Government were eventually pleased to put into their legislation. That methodology has been missing from the rest of the discussions between—what is it?—London and Brussels, the European Union and the United Kingdom, or a few individuals centred in No. 10, Chequers or wherever. When the agreement was eventually published, with its accompanying policy document, it made no mention of either Wales or Scotland. The die was cast. That document came out of an entirely different set of preconsiderations. Nobody had been consulted. There was no room for compromise. I do not know how you make your way forward when that is the spirit that has produced the working documents that will affect the future of this country well into the years ahead.
We just have to express our confidence in the methodology used by those who worked on that Bill a year ago, showing that it can be done. David Lidington in the Cabinet Office was magnificent and accommodating; he put his officials at our disposal, checked things for us and looked for extra information. It was an exercise in how to negotiate—which, from my reading at a distance of all that has happened on the official front, has been entirely absent. So here we are. What have we learned? We have learned that because the agreement is so at odds with everything that the restructuring Wales document was about, the Welsh Assembly felt obliged to reject absolutely everything that has come forward through the other channel. We are now in a very difficult place indeed. Scotland will have its own stance and so will Northern Ireland.
What do I read while sitting here enjoying this feast of oratory, rhetoric and wisdom that the House of Lords is famous for? Some of us look at our phones now and again to see what is happening in the real world outside, and I see that the spokesperson for the Prime Minister has said that she is entering into discussions with senior politicians from other parties with “no change” in her basic principles. There will be no market that we can all belong to. There will be no bending of those principles that we have heard ad nauseam. In a Statement made in the other place on Monday, the Prime Minister herself promised, as a concessionary point to the people of Ireland, that they would have a place at the negotiating table as this agreement was taken forward after we left the Union. Well, congratulations to Northern Ireland—but what about Scotland and Wales? What about the discussions on which will depend the ethos and timbre of the kind of country we are when the Brexit thing is behind us? We have had a deplorable lack of consultation. This debate has proved, again and again from various parts of the House, just what might have been done differently. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, paid tribute to the qualities of the Minister, and it is now up to him to live up to those remarks.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, if that was the speech of a novice, we look forward to hearing from the noble Lord when he finds his length. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this timely and exceptionally well-informed debate. In particular, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who chose and introduced it, this time without the colourful reference to his maiden aunts.
The noble Lord has listened to more hours of debate in Parliament on the union—many of them I expect involuntarily—than any of us. He has unrivalled insight into the constitutional and legislative implications of what has happened in the past and what is happening now. I am therefore pleased that at this time of constitutional change, with our eyes turned outwards to the EU, he has provided us with the opportunity to look inwards—as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, has just told us—to the far older, far stronger bonds between our nations, which have enabled us to overcome past challenges, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, told us. This is an opportunity to see how those bonds might be strengthened in the future. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose managed to put the relationships in a historical context by drawing on recollections of his ancestors.
I will say straight away that the Government take the warnings from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and others who have spoken in this debate extremely seriously. I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Hain, and others have done with the Constitution Reform Group to bring stability to the union, an objective which we all share. The Minister for the Constitution looks forward to meeting that group soon, and I will return to the Bill in a moment.
Speaking on “The Andrew Marr Show” earlier this month, the Prime Minister said that, if the vote was lost on Tuesday, we would be in uncharted waters, and that of course has consequences for the union. In our debate, we have had some professional political cartographers steering us away from the jagged rocks below the cliff edge to which some siren Brexiteers entice us, and indicating where calmer waters and more favourable winds may prevail. No deal would be bad for all of us but it would create particular political tensions in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as we have heard today from my noble friends Lord McInnes and Lord Dunlop, and from the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow, Lord Hannay and Lord Hay, who spoke about the backstop. I think we were all moved by the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about Wales and the late Steffan Lewis, to whom he paid tribute.
It is worth rewinding briefly to see how we got here. Of course, the centrifugal forces within the UK predate the Brexit referendum, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said in his opening remarks. This was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres. We saw the growth in political support for Scottish independence when the SNP unexpectedly won overall control at Holyrood, and in Northern Ireland we have seen growing support for the party that believes in a united Ireland. The Brexit referendum crystallised and added momentum to these forces.
During our debate, there has been criticism of the decision to hold referendums, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, reminded us of how we got here. I am personally cautious about referendums as they can cause tension with our parliamentary democracy, but there are some issues which it cannot satisfactorily resolve. For example, the SNP, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, was never going to win a majority in Westminster to deliver Scottish independence, yet there was clearly significant support for it in Scotland. The referendum was the right way to resolve that issue. Likewise, UKIP was never going to win a Westminster election, but in 2014 it topped the poll in the EU elections on an unequivocal manifesto of withdrawal. Again, the referendum was the right way to resolve this question and lance the boil.
Likewise, there is provision for a referendum in Northern Ireland should the conditions in the Belfast agreement ever be fulfilled, a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said: that in Northern Ireland, more important than Brexit is the wish of the population to see the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive. They see that as their top priority.
In passing, I understand all the arguments against a second referendum, which is not government policy, but I do not accept that our democratic tradition is so fragile that it could not withstand one, were it to be held.
The criticism that can be made of the Brexit referendum is not so much of the decision to hold it, as of the subsequent and unsuccessful campaign to remain, recently revealed on our screens as having been outwitted by a slick if, at times, irresponsible operation acting below the radar of conventional politics and masterminded by an arch political disruptor. That referendum crystallised, but did not cause, the different views in the UK on whether we should remain part of the EU. Two countries voted to leave and two to remain. The consequences of that have been the focus of today’s debate.
I turn to the constructive proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in his Bill to help bind the UK together. I commend him for identifying the broadly undisputed purposes of the United Kingdom in Clause 2. I also applaud the heroic endeavour to distinguish between what are called “central policy areas” and matters that are devolved to the four national Parliaments. Here, I particularly welcome the requirement that the Governments of each nation co-operate on matters of national importance, such as aspects of defence and security. Co-operation is one of the key principles of our current memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Governments, and its operation over recent years has been positive. Such an approach should continue. I propose to say a word or two in a moment about one of the themes running through the debate on the relationship between government and the devolved Assemblies.
Reading the press release put out by the steering committee on 9 October, I was struck by the following sentence:
“the Bill asserts that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and (if it so chooses) England is each entitled to its own internal sovereignty”.
The noble Lord might find this an unfair comment, but I found it perverse that a Bill that seeks to bring us closer together should have as its starting point the total separation of the four parts of the union. Even if they subsequently agreed to pool sovereignty, that initial step and taste of sovereignty might make subsequent independence easier to achieve, a point made by my noble friend Lord Dunlop.
My first question on reading the Bill relates to the asymmetrical nature of current devolution settlements, which I think correctly reflects the different histories and cultures of our four nations. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all treated differently. The Bill does not appear to make provision for this, and has a one-size-fits-all approach that does not reflect the findings of the Silk and Smith commissions, nor the views of the people of the UK, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord McInnes.
My second question relates to one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, about adjusting the settlement over time to reflect changing circumstances. We can do that at the moment and we do so relatively easily. English votes for English laws is a case in point. It has embedded fairness and balance into Parliament’s law-making process, ensuring that MPs representing English constituencies can consent to legislation that affects only England while maintaining the key principle that all MPs from across the UK can debate, amend and vote on every piece of legislation.
We have also continued to move forward at pace to decentralise governance in England, bringing powers closer to the people so that services can be delivered that are attuned to their local needs. I challenge the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who I think said that little had changed since Redcliffe-Maud. Through the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, we have taken major steps to decentralise governance in England through devolution deals. Seven city regions are now headed up by their own elected mayors, with their own devolved powers and budgets.
I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. An enthusiastic debate over devolution is continuing across Yorkshire and a number of further suggestions have already been discussed locally. We are of course willing to discuss proposals that have support behind them, cover a sensible economic area and do not break up areas that already have long-standing integrated services. We are currently considering the information recently submitted by the 18 Yorkshire leaders, but we have always been clear that the first step to any devolution deal across Yorkshire is the full implementation of the 2015 Sheffield City Region devolution deal. We want Sheffield to enjoy the full benefits of its 2015 deal, including £900 million of investment.
Turning back to the Bill for a moment, the future changes set out in Part 2 of the Schedule seem infinitely more complicated and cumbersome, and risk locking us into a settlement that becomes outdated—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. Constitutional development in the UK needs to evolve to reflect circumstances of the day and be flexible enough to meet new challenges.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, will understand that his Bill is unlikely to have an easy passage. My attention was caught by Clause 28(1), which says:
“On commencement of this Section, the House of Lords shall cease to form part of Parliament”.
Well, we may need to spend a little time on that one. The noble Lord will understand better than anyone that a Bill heralding the most significant constitutional change in our history will take a Session or two to make progress.
What are the Government doing to strengthen the union during Brexit? We recognise the importance of working closely with the devolved Administrations throughout the negotiation process and welcome the regular engagement that has taken place through forums such as the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations and the Ministerial Forum on EU Negotiations.
Here I might depart from my text—always a risk—and say that one of the themes running through the debate has been what the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, called “imperial condescension”, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to as a “power grab”, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to in more derogatory terms. But it was clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said, that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right honourable friend David Lidington, wants his approach to have that element of respect and to promote good relationships.
I take on board the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord McConnell, my noble friend Lord McInnes and a number of others that this relationship should be rebooted. Comments were made about the regularity of the meetings and Ministers’ attendance. It is quite clear from this debate that the institutions and the quality of the dialogue need to be improved. As a result of the exchanges on that subject, I propose to talk to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whenever I can and feed through to him the theme that has consistently run through some of the speeches on both sides. I know that officials are working closely with counterparts in the devolved Administrations to take forward this review of intergovernmental relationships. On 19 December, the Prime Minister, together with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, reviewed the progress made so far of the review at the JMC. It is important for us to look, in the light of our debate, at the principles and machinery that underpin the relationships and how we can best ensure—
Lord Dykes
Since the Prime Minister is so overworked and busy, would it not be a good idea for David Lidington to be in charge of those detailed discussions?
Lord Young of Cookham
My right honourable friend David Lidington has a key role to play in building up a relationship with the devolved assemblies. He has attended a large number of these meetings. If the noble Lord looks at the allocation of ministerial responsibility, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has this as part of his portfolio.
To revert to what I was saying, an interim report was presented and agreed on 19 December. All the Administrations have tasked officials to make a further report to the JMC(P) in due course. I will ensure that the views expressed during this debate are taken on board as that review takes place.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, asked about legislative consent Motions. We are fully committed to the Sewel convention and its associated practices for seeking consent set out in the devolution guidance notes. We are continuing to seek legislative consent, taking on board the devolved Administrations’ views and work on the EU exit Bills according to established practices, just as we have always done.
I may need to write to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, about the letter from Mr Tusk that she referred to but, in principle, the Government are committed to the Belfast agreement, as they always have been, and remain steadfast.
We have been working with the devolved Administrations on what a deal might look like in practice domestically. We are committed to preserving and strengthening the decision-making abilities of the devolved Administrations and, as we have made clear, the devolved institutions will continue to be able to make any decision that they can make now after exit. As set out in the EU withdrawal Act, as new powers are returned to the UK and where they are within areas of devolved competence, they will flow directly to Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.
We are also working collaboratively with the devolved Administrations to agree where we should continue to take UK-wide approaches and what they will look like. These common frameworks referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, will be established in specific policy areas and help preserve the UK internal market, preventing four different sets of rules in different parts of the UK making it more difficult for a cheesemaker in Monmouthshire to sell to customers in Bristol, or for a farmer in Aberdeenshire to sell their beef in Berwick-upon-Tweed.
On funding, which a number of noble Lords mentioned, we are committed to the Barnett formula. We believe it is a fair and transparent way of funding the devolved Administrations. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised a good point on accountability. I suppose the answer is that the Scottish Executive are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and ultimately to the Scottish electorate, for the way in which they spend the money—including the money that they get from Westminster.
In the turbulence of the current political situation, it is easy to lose sight of the background to this debate. The bonds between our nations exist not only because we share values and histories but because, time and again, we have shown that we can achieve more when we operate together. That is why we believe in the union and will continue to govern in the interests of every part of it. That commitment is reflected in the way that we work across the entirety of the UK: from high-profile, job-creating investments such as the aircraft carrier being built at Rosyth to the no less important work behind the scenes, such as officials working hard to ensure that Welsh beef and lamb can be sold across the globe. Initiatives such as the industrial strategy drive growth across the whole of the UK, while sector deals and investment in research and development will support the industries of the future, whether in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England.
I will try to answer one or two specific questions. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked about the Supreme Court. We challenged the Scottish Bill on the basis that it was not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. We are grateful to the Supreme Court for providing greater clarity. This is not simply a question of where constitutional powers lie, important as such questions are. Greater clarity was needed to ensure that our statute book functions properly and the law is clear.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on Gibraltar: let no one be in any doubt that on the future partnership the UK will negotiate for the whole UK family including Gibraltar, as the Prime Minister said on 25 November. As the Chief Minister said, this is a deal which works for Gibraltar.
Where do we go from here to prevent the centrifugal forces I referred to earlier driving apart the component parts of the UK? We need a deal with the EU that those in Northern Ireland and Scotland in particular feel comfortable with, even though a majority voted to remain, and we need to avoid no deal.
In 2010, my party was the largest one but it had no majority. The country was looking over a cliff edge after the collapse of global markets, with concerns about our currency and our financial and political instability. Then, in the interests of the country, we reached out to those sitting on the Opposition Benches—our opponents in the recently concluded general election. An offer to talk was rightly accepted, without any preconditions. We then had to abandon some manifesto commitments; there were tensions within my party that had to be managed as we formed the then coalition. But it was the right thing to do and I remind my former colleagues in another place, understandably worried about their future, that our party came together then and, when the country passed its verdict, we went on to win a general election for the first time in nearly 25 years.
Now, we do not need another five-year coalition but, picking up a point that I think was made by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, we need to work together again in the interests of the country. The current deal is dead but I hope that a reformed one can be found, acceptable to those who want to leave, so that the referendum box can be ticked, but also acceptable to those who, like me, voted remain so that we can do so with minimum turbulence, because on leaving we move into the transition period where there is stability. Your Lordships’ House has debated these issues today calmly and constructively, in contrast to the excitable atmosphere in another place, and we have put aside partisan points. That is the spirit in which the debate should now continue in both Houses of Parliament, with a view to arriving at an acceptable conclusion in the national interest.
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, I will not attempt to respond to or summarise the debate in any way, as that role has been so admirably performed by the Minister. I will just say two things. First, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been an excellent debate. Secondly, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, that I think the hostelry in Lisvane he has in mind is the Black Griffin. I should be very happy to join him there. We might even persuade the Minister to join us for an extremely convivial discussion of the Act of Union Bill.
Brexit: Further Referendum
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tyler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what legislation is necessary to enable a further referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union to take place in 2019.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to open this very topical debate. I am disappointed only that for obvious reasons the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is not able to respond, since I know from long personal knowledge that he would have been fully acquainted with the issues to which I will refer. However, I was delighted to note his comment just now about referendums. I will take that away and think about it again. In the meantime, it seems that he and the Cabinet Office have been able to brief the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the Minister who is to respond, which is just as well since the subject of this debate has relatively little to do with his department.
Incidentally, I was interested to see a Written Answer yesterday from the Minister in which he announced,
“we will be leaving the European Union on 20 March 2019”.
He may be leaving on that date but the rest of us have to wait nine more days, or possibly nine more weeks—or not at all.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for the opportunity to correct that. It was an administrative error. It did not correspond to the draft of the Parliamentary Question that I signed off. I have spoken to the Permanent Secretary in my department, who is instituting an inquiry into how that happened. I have also written to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to apologise for the error and correct the record.
Lord Tyler
I am delighted that the Minister has had that opportunity. I suspect that it was handwriting; if his is anything like mine, “0” and “9” occasionally look much alike.
The subject on the Order Paper does not directly argue the merits or demerits of a further referendum on our relationship with our present partners in the EU. I note in passing, however, that the unprecedentedly large majorities in both Houses defeating the Government’s current preferred deal, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred just now, together with the ever-increasing insistence that a crash-out no deal is unacceptable, means that the Cabinet and Parliament may together move in the direction of a new referendum. That is certainly the view of all serious commentators since those votes, while of course the vote last night removes the alternative of a snap election. I should say that next month I will celebrate the 45th anniversary of my first election to the other place. I have never experienced anything quite like the irresponsible prevarication of kicking the can down the road, which is of course evident again in the other place this very afternoon with the Business Statement. It is quite extraordinary.
However, that is not the subject of this debate: I am sure that the Minister and other speakers will not wish to spend precious time on it. Rather, we are concerned here with the practicalities of electoral law. I am extraordinarily grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for still being here—I suspect that he has missed his lunch. He and I anticipated, way back in September 2018, that the circumstances could arise if and when the Government or Parliament, or both, had to examine the need for new legislation. We were anxious that the pressure of time in such circumstances might mean that a consensus on the necessity of dealing with acknowledged defects in the 2015 Act was ignored or that both Houses were forced to rush through inadequately scrutinised proposals. In our experience, nothing results in imperfect law more than claims of expediency or lack of time. We were reinforced in our determination that such a process could not and should not be cobbled together at the last minute when an authoritative report from the Constitution Unit at UCL was published in October—it has been referred to in the excellent Library brief for this debate.
With the expert advice of Dr Alan Renwick from the unit, the professional assistance of the experienced legislative draftsman, Daniel Greenberg, and supervision by a cross-party/non-party reference group comprising also the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, we produced the draft Bills before Christmas.
Significantly, we concluded that a very short “paving Bill” would be necessary to authorise the Electoral Commission to start preparations before Royal Assent for the main Bill because there is clearly a tight timetable ahead. By this means, we calculate that polling day could be any time before the beginning of May 2019 or even earlier. That would be very helpful in terms of the European parliamentary elections that follow at the end of May.
Of course, individual members of this team have differing views on the desirability of a further referendum and do not necessarily endorse every word of the drafts. However, we all agree that Parliament must consider and approve properly prepared, effective and updated legislation for this purpose.
On Monday this week, just before the votes in the two Houses, a formidable cross-party group of MPs, led by my right honourable friend Vince Cable and including Dominic Grieve and Chuka Umunna, published our draft Bills and endorsed this approach. Subsequent events have clearly justified their and our commitment to concentrate on relevant preparation rather than wasting millions of pounds and millions of hours on the no-deal distractions. As noble Lords may be aware, yesterday Mr Grieve formally presented our cross-party draft legislation in the other place.
No doubt other Members of Your Lordships’ House participating this afternoon will have examined these draft Bills, which are included in the Library brief together with all the other relevant discussion that has taken place in both Houses in recent weeks and months, so I do not need to take them through every aspect of our proposals but simply highlight the crucial features.
The draft paving Bill, the preparatory legislation, is limited to authorising the Electoral Commission to consult on the choice of the ballot paper question, which will also affect the choice of lead campaign organisations, before Royal Assent for the main Bill. This could be taken through both Houses in a matter of a few days or even hours. We were guided by a wide range of expert opinion and took careful note of the views of the Electoral Commission in opting for a simple binary choice, just as in 2016, between two very firm, detailed and easily intelligible options—indeed, much firmer and more intelligible than in that case.
Our initial proposal is that the choice should be between the leave conditions negotiated and recommended by the Government and remaining within the existing, well-understood conditions of EU membership. Much as electoral reform anoraks like me might enjoy a three-way, AV or two-question poll, we agree with all the expert evidence that we have received that this would be both confusing and likely to result in variable and unclear results.
The other area of potential variation on the 2015-16 legislation that concerned us was the franchise. Since I successfully supported the inclusion of 16 and 17 year-olds at one stage of the 2015 Bill in your Lordships’ House, and lost that only when support fell away at ping-pong, I am only too aware of the case for them to vote on such an important decision for their future. That case will be made again, I know, together with that for all EU citizens permanently resident in the UK and all UK citizens resident abroad.
However, we were persuaded by the Constitution Unit and others that to include in this first draft a change in the franchise compared with 2015-16 position would be seen to be moving the goalposts. Therefore, we have not done so at this stage.
This did not preclude us from examining carefully the generally agreed case for removing defects in the 2015 Act where the subsequent experience of the Electoral Commission, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the DCMS Select Committee had identified the need for greater transparency relating to spending returns on the one hand and the authorship and payment for online messaging on the other. Our schedule to the main Bill, especially items 3 to 6, deals with those matters.
In my usual constructive and positive way, always helpful to Ministers, I am both posing the Question and providing the Answer today. This is practical contingency planning, compared with the nonsensical preparations for the crash-out no deal that the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to earlier as now really removed from our consideration. I am sure that other Members of your Lordships’ House will be equally concerned to ensure that Parliament, if now faced with this challenge, is well prepared—in a former life, I was a Boy Scout, as no doubt were other Members of your Lordships’ House: be prepared.
I can confirm that my right honourable friend Vince Cable and other colleagues have raised these practical issues with the Prime Minister and her senior Ministers in response to her invitation following the vote last night. This debate could not be more topical and I am delighted to introduce it.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I must declare that I was never a Boy Scout.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister, not because I wish to express an opinion on whether there will be a referendum as a result of the Brexit negotiations but, since it is being discussed in Parliament and contingency planning is important, because my main concern is about matters that have been raised by the Electoral Commission since the previous referendum. I say that as a former member of the House of Commons committee which oversaw the Electoral Commission and as a former electoral commissioner myself.
In 2016, the Electoral Commission produced two reports. I would like my noble friend the Minister to take note of some of the recommendations that came out of them. If he is not able to answer today on some of the specific issues, I would be happy for him to write to me at a later date, because some of them are rather techie points.
One of the recommendations refers to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act—a long title for an Act. Its acronym is equally difficult, so I shall refer to it as just “the Act”. It was passed in 2000, but has subsequently been amended by Parliament.
As we have approached any election, it seems that the Act has had to be amended in some way at short notice because somebody has come up with the idea that there is a flaw in it or because matters have moved on. The Electoral Commission made some specific recommendations in its 2016 report following the referendum that we are discussing. The first related to loan controls and stated:
“The absence of loan controls in the … rules is a significant gap in the regulation of referendums. The … Government should bring forward the relevant secondary legislation to introduce loan controls”.
In the last couple of years I have unfortunately had some periods of absence due to ill-health, so if I have missed this, if this has gone through and everything has been ticked and is in place, forgive me—my noble friend will no doubt tell me.
I shall not go through all 13 recommendations in the Electoral Commission report, but just focus on some that it will be important to have in place before another referendum, whenever and of whatever nature. Another is that:
“The Government and Parliament should revisit the permissibility controls on companies … permissibility controls on companies do not fully reflect the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and the implications of the current company permissibility test highlighted by our investigations, the Government and, in due course, Parliament should revisit the issue … to ensure that they meet the underlying policy intention of preventing donations and loans from foreign companies”.
That is another very important point and something that could easily slip through if there is a referendum at short notice in a small timeframe.
All these recommendations are important but, because of time, I shall focus on just some. The report says that:
“The Government and Parliament should take into account the evidence from the EU referendum when considering whether the PPERA referendum spending limits remain appropriate. The Commission does not have a specific statutory role in advising on spending limits at UK-wide referendums held under PPERA. It is nevertheless important that the Government and Parliament take into account the evidence from the EU referendum when considering whether the PPERA referendum spending limits, including the registration threshold, remain appropriate.”
There is obviously more detail in the report as to why the commission thinks that is important. It also states that:
“Joint spending controls should be incorporated into PPERA. To help ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the referendum spending rules, appropriate controls should be incorporated into PPERA to regulate campaigners that engage in joint spending so that they apply for all future referendums.”
Many people will be concerned about pre-poll reporting:
“Pre-poll reporting requirements should be incorporated into PPERA so they apply for all future referendums. To increase transparency during the months before the referendum poll”—
I do not know whether we are talking “months” here, if such a referendum were to take place, but again the Electoral Commission thought that this was an important area. It recommended that, to help encourage campaigners to accept donations only from permissible sources,
“pre-poll reporting requirements should be incorporated into PPERA”.
Given the legislation load that we are dealing with in both Houses at present, some of this would apply to secondary legislation, but quite clearly an amendment is required to the Act itself for many of these recommendations. I am concerned about how the Government would find the time if they were minded to make these changes in order to improve the referendum, whatever referendum, when it comes. There is also a recommendation that:
“The Commission’s current fine limit should be reviewed and increased. To ensure that our sanctioning regime provides a strong deterrent to non-compliance, our sanction limit of £20,000 should be reviewed and increased to a level that would act as a suitable deterrent reflecting the level of fines available to other commensurate statutory regulators and financial regulation regimes”.
This is techie stuff but has come from actual experience of the very referendum that we all discuss and talk about. It is not unusual, I suppose, that one learns as one goes along and that certain flaws come to light. The difficulty would be if those flaws and those recommendations were ignored and we just carried on in the same way, so I say to my noble friend that this is a challenge to the Government in terms of workload and compliance but I hope that they will none the less find time to examine the report and the recommendations of the Electoral Commission again and see how they might incorporate them into their work schedule.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness says that the issues she has raised are technical, but they are important. They go to the heart of the conduct of a future referendum and are very far from technical. I hope that the Government and the House—because it is quite clear that Parliament is going to take charge of this process—will take very serious account of what she has said about spending limits, the legitimate sources of funds and the sanctions available either to the Electoral Commission or to whichever commission conducts a referendum. Her points were extremely important and I hope people will pay close attention to what she said.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for raising the issue in the House and for the work that he and his colleagues have done in preparing the Bill. The two Bills are fine as far as they go, but as we move increasingly surely in the direction of the referendum—partly because of the vote of the House of Commons on Tuesday, but also not least because of my party’s movement towards a referendum, which has been significantly accelerated by Jeremy Corbyn’s speech and remarks in Hastings today—it is very important that Parliament should start paying early attention to the rules and principles under which a referendum will be conducted. In the brief time available to me, I want to raise, in telegraphese, 10 issues that need to be considered.
First, it is my view that the vote in any referendum should be extended to 16 and 17 year-olds. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said that we should not be moving the goalposts. The goalposts are very uncertain in respect of votes for 16 and 17 year-olds. In the Scottish referendum they had the vote. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have extended the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds for their domestic elections. There is legislation already in the other place for extending the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds in all UK elections. I can tell your Lordships that there is very strong support for the vote among 16 and 17 year-olds, shown both by polls and when you meet them—I do lots of meetings in schools and colleges at the moment—particularly in respect of Brexit, because there is no group whose future is more at stake. It is my view that we should extend the vote to them.
Secondly, there should be automatic registration of all young people in their place of study and not the individual registration that applies at the moment. The Electoral Commission has established that one-quarter of 18 to 24 year-olds are not on the electoral register at the moment, because of the individual registration process. That is democratically unacceptable.
Coming to my third point, the right course is that not only should 16 and 17 year-olds be automatically enrolled, there should be a polling station in all places of study and places where students reside in large numbers. Those three measures between them will significantly extend and boost voter turnout among young people.
My fourth point, which is related, is that whatever polling day is selected—I know that the Bill mentions May but it may not be possible to hold a referendum that quickly—the polling day for a second European referendum should be in term time, to facilitate young people voting. That means, in practice, that it needs to be in either May or October.
Fifthly, there should be only one campaign allowed on each side. We should not go into another referendum with two campaigns on one side, as happened last time. That was an open invitation to breaches of the law and to dodgy practice, because one was a mainstream campaign supported by the Conservative Party and one was supported by all kinds of fringe organisations.
Sixthly, there should be a special commission for the referendum, on the Irish model. We should not be tied to the very cumbersome processes of the existing Electoral Commission. The concept of a special commission chaired by a very senior judge—in this case, it should be a judge of the Supreme Court—works extremely well in that context and we should apply it here.
Seventhly, there was a big problem in the last referendum about social media and electronic campaigning, which was essentially above the law and played a good part in the disinformation and illegality that took place. I suggest two amendments that would deal with this issue. There should be an imprint on all social media and electronic communications, as applies to printed communications at the moment. The second important reform is that there should be a right of appeal by those who identify social media and electronic communications—a lot of which is very rapidly moving— that they believe are inaccurate or breach the law. People should have a right of appeal to the commission that is established and that commission should have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, so correctly said, much stronger powers of enforcement, including significantly greater powers to fine. It must also have the power to move quickly. With great respect to the noble Baroness, one of the criticisms people have of the Electoral Commission is that it has been far too slow-moving in this process. The fact that the massive illegality that took place in the leave campaign during the last referendum has only just come to the attention of the necessary police authorities is a serious criticism of the Electoral Commission. It cannot be allowed to occur in the next referendum.
My final point relates to the question. The Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, suggests to a straight choice between the Government’s negotiated settlement and the status quo—remaining in the European Union. That may be the appropriate question to put on the ballot paper, but your Lordships are aware that there is a lot of debate over whether there should be a third option of no-deal, or WTO terms. I am open-minded on this issue. There is no technical reason why it cannot be done; preferential voting would make it perfectly possible. After all, people can express a second preference in mayoral elections at the moment—I see no reason why it could not work perfectly legitimately in a referendum.
The issue is not technical. Rather, there are two issues of principle which Parliament will need to consider at the appropriate time. The first is whether a no-deal WTO option is in fact credible, in the sense of whether it could actually be implemented. That is a significant issue, because the proposals put forward by Nigel Farage and others simply could not be implemented. They are not technically possible, and key proposals—particularly with respect to the border in Northern Ireland—would breach the Good Friday agreement and primary legislation.
The second issue that needs to considered is the concern that Parliament will have for the wider social buy-in to the referendum, and the legitimacy it holds. A big issue is whether it will be possible to have a referendum without an option clearly supported by a considerable body of leave opinion, which is true in the case of a hard WTO Brexit. I have not reached a conclusion myself on that issue, but it is clearly technically possible to have a three-option referendum.
The two issues that Parliament will need to consider are whether there is a credible option that it could implement in respect of a hard WTO Brexit, and what it would then do to ensure wide social buy-in. These are very significant issues. They are clearly going to preoccupy Parliament over the coming weeks, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on having brought them to the attention of the House.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I can be extremely brief, as perhaps I should be since noble Lords have heard quite enough from me this afternoon. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for his expertise and leadership on these issues.
It was Emerson who said:
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.
I plead guilty to consistency, foolish or otherwise. Noble Lords may recall—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to it in his winding up speech in the previous debate—that almost exactly a year ago, at Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, I asked your Lordships to consider the case of my three elderly and extremely nervous aunts. I wished to give them a treat and asked them to decide democratically what they would like to do. They chose to go to the cinema, but I discovered in the local paper that the only films on offer were “Reservoir Dogs” and “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre”. My conundrum was: do I say, “You must stick with your democratic decision”, or, “Now you know what’s on offer, what do you think”?
It must be for the elected House, not your Lordships’ House, to take any decision on whether there is a second referendum, in the light of knowledge of what is on offer—which at the moment, of course, is not yet clear. Were there to be a second referendum, much would need to be settled, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has given us a preview of some of the things that might enter into discussion. Those things would need to be settled very quickly. There would be no shortage of those who say that there is no time and it is all too difficult. The Bills presented in the House of Commons yesterday seek to demonstrate that, should the political will exist, that will can be implemented.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I also am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for having raised this issue. As he said, it is highly topical. Although the speeches today have been confined to the technical issues of a referendum, the reason why it is so topical is that the demands for a second referendum are growing. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said at the end of his speech that, in the discussions taking place between the Liberal leaders and the Prime Minister, the issue of a referendum is being talked about. Although he said that he did not want to raise the pros and cons of a second referendum himself, I certainly do.
Sometimes one’s predictions are completely wrong. Soon after the last referendum, when we saw how divisive the campaign had been—how toxic its effects and how complicated its repercussions—I thought that nobody of sound mind would ever again call for a second national referendum on anything. How wrong I was. The air is now thick with those demands. I very much hope the other place will not call for a second referendum, and I shall explain why in just two points.
My first point is that one of the fantastic things about this country is how we conduct general elections. Once every four or five years, all voters—whatever their background, employment, educational qualifications or income—can go to a polling station. Everybody is equal. On a Thursday they go to their local library, school or village hall, pick up a pencil stub on the end of a piece of string and simply put a cross on a piece of paper and shove it into a tin box. If the people have voted against the governing party, on the Friday the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Government all leave office without a drop of blood shed and without a scuffle in the street. The reason why it is done in that way and the reason why everybody accepts the result, even though more than half the voters may have voted against the new governing party, is that they know that the rules of the game have been observed. That is how you gain consent and acceptance for the result.
When we had the referendum in 2017—
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury
Thank you. When we had the referendum in 2016, everybody knew the result would be accepted. I have here just one example of what the late Lord Ashdown said on the eve of referendum day:
“I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken. Whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%”.
For all of us—in or out—when the British people have spoken, we do what they suggest. As Lord Ashdown said, “they command”.
If we have a second referendum, we will be invalidating the result of the first—we will be saying that it did not really count. In fact, by definition, we will also be invalidating the second and beginning to remove a cornerstone of confidence in our democratic system.
My second point is that, in a general election, the electorate delegate to politicians the responsibility for taking complicated decisions. In this referendum we have learned the problems that occur when politicians delegate to the public responsibility for taking a complicated decision. We ought to have realised that this is a very difficult thing to do. The people decided that they wanted to leave the European Union. If the public are now told by the politicians that they are so hopeless, so incompetent, so utterly useless that they have to ask the people to do the job that they should be doing, they will further undermine public confidence in them. We know what happens when that chasm widens. We see it today in many countries in Europe, and we saw it in pre-war Europe in the 1930s. I fear that if the politicians are yet again seen to be useless, saying to the public, “We were no good—we’ll have to hand it over to you again”, the chasm between politicians and the public will become ever wider.
Lord Tyler
I point out to the noble Lord that his two arguments are mutually contradictory. On the one hand he says that we should not respect the results of referenda, for reasons he has just given, and on the other he says that we have to respect that of the 2016 referendum.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury
No; I said that we should accept the result of the referendum but that public confidence in the acceptance would be eroded. If we have a second referendum and the public believe that the politicians have said, “We don’t think you made the right decision; therefore, it’s invalid”, they will think, “Why is the second referendum more valid than the first?”
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Question and his speech, and thank other noble Lords for their contributions and expertise, in particular on procedural and technical aspects of the possibility of a second referendum. This is certainly a pertinent Question for Short Debate following the massive defeat in the Commons of the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. Although I think that this Question is premature at this stage, noble Lords are right to ask questions now in case the logjam is such that a second referendum becomes the only answer.
The UCL Constitution Unit’s October report is enormously useful to today’s debate, and I too commend the excellent Library briefing on this. UCL rightly points out that many of the questions are ultimately for politicians to decide, and I shall direct most of my questions to the Minister for that reason.
I hope that in response the Minister will address the actual issues and questions raised by noble Lords rather than just resort to the usual government rhetoric of dismissing the issue as an affront to democracy or a betrayal of the people. As the Minister knows, there is growing support for the need for a second referendum in the face of the chaos we are facing. Today’s letter in the Times from more than 170 significant business leaders supporting a further referendum underlines this and adds to the support from across communities, not just from former remainers. The Labour Party view remains that which we agreed at our party conference last year:
“If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
The clear priority at this point must be to find a way through the impasse.
As noble Lords have said, it is clear from the Constitution Unit’s report that any referendum would take around 22 weeks, or five months. Do the Government agree with this timetable? Given that timescale, the report is also clear that any such referendum would require the extension of Article 50. Can the Minister say what preparations the Government have made for the possible extension of Article 50 and whether any discussions have taken place with the EU at any level regarding an Article 50 extension? I hope that the answer to these questions is not “None”. After the billions of pounds spent preparing for a no-deal Brexit, it would seem ludicrous that no preparations or discussions had taken place for what seems increasingly inevitable.
I also ask the Minister: in the event of the House of Commons voting for a second referendum, will the Government respect that decision and give time for a Bill, such as that tabled by his colleague, Dominic Grieve MP, if the House of Commons wanted it? I would also like reassurance about the process for determining the questions put in any second referendum, taking on board the concerns in the Constitution Unit report that a binary question may not give a clear answer. I also ask for reassurance that the Government will not seek to put no deal on any such ballot paper.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for so excellently introducing this important subject and giving us an opportunity to debate it today, and I thank all other noble Lords who contributed.
I will first address the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Browning, who made a number of excellent points, which were amplified by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. She asked a number of questions about the technical conduct of referenda, and some of her points were also reflected in the report of the DCMS Select Committee and others. The Government are currently considering this matter, but it is not within the purview of my departmental responsibilities—it is a matter for the Cabinet Office—so perhaps it would be best for me to write to my noble friend, and copy other noble Lords, with the detailed responses to her questions.
The referendum held in the summer of 2016 was indeed a historic event for the United Kingdom, a vote for which there was the highest ever turnout for a UK-wide referendum and, moreover, the highest turnout in any election or referendum since 1992. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, but it is our firm view that there can be no second-guessing of the outcome of such a vote—not when more than 17.4 million people voted to express, in the clearest of terms, an instruction to the Government, as Parliament had asked them to do, to withdraw from the European Union.
The Prime Minister addressed this in the Commons on Tuesday evening. Despite the vote against the deal, the Government still stand by their commitment to the British people to respect the clear result from the 2016 referendum. In 2016 we committed to respect that vote, and we remain committed now. We continue to work to deliver our exit from the European Union on 29 March—not 20 March. We will not hold a second referendum, and to do so would be to disrespect the result of the 2016 vote.
Lord Tyler
I am sure the Minister appreciates that it is difficult still to say that it is the will of the people that this particular situation should be resolved on the basis of the discussion and decision in 2016 when the latest public opinion poll, published today, shows that 56% of the population—presumably, both leavers and remainers from 2016—are in favour of a new referendum, and only 44% are against. Contrast that with the support for the Government’s current deal, and that looks to be a pretty popular way in which the will of the people is being expressed.
Lord Callanan
I understand the firm view of the Liberal Democrats on this; they have been dogged in pursuing it. I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the House yesterday, when I addressed the subject in a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, on opinion polling and whether public opinion has moved. There are clearly lots of different opinion polls around, but yesterday I quoted an analysis of the opinion polling that has been produced—I do not have it in front of me at the moment—which suggests that in fact, if you look at all the polls in the round, there has been no significant change in public opinion on the issue. The public remain deeply divided on the subject—which of course is why we held the referendum in the first place.
Lord Adonis
My understanding is that, despite what the Minister just said, work is in fact going on in the Cabinet Office in preparation for a second referendum. Would he care to confirm that that is the case?
Lord Callanan
I asked my Permanent Secretary whether any work was going on in DExEU, which is my department, and he confirmed that it is not. He will have to ask Cabinet Office Ministers whether they are doing—
Lord Adonis
Since the Minister is not informed about what is going on in the Government for whom he is responsible, could he write to me afterwards to let me know?
Lord Callanan
I can tell the noble Lord that it is firm government policy that we will not be holding a further referendum.
The question of how we would hold a second referendum on this matter is therefore entirely hypothetical. However, I have been asked the Question by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, so I will answer it and elaborate on the process by which we hold referendums. But I reiterate that it is not government policy, and for a good reason.
The practice of holding a referendum is not uncommon in the United Kingdom. Since 1973, there have been 11. In response to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, I will set out the process. In the UK, referendums require primary legislation to provide their legal basis: they require an Act of Parliament. The legislation would need to specify details such as the referendum question, the franchise, any amendments to the regulatory framework, conduct rules for the poll, and the date on which the referendum will be held. It would also require a number of other steps, such as question testing, where the Electoral Commission, according to its statutory duty, assesses the intelligibility of the referendum question. There would need to be appropriate poll preparation—the period in which the Electoral Commission and local officials prepare for administering the poll and regulating campaigners—and a regulated referendum period during which regulated campaigning occurs.
This is not a simple process. When considering the practicality of holding a second referendum before March 2019, as both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have explained in recent weeks, we cannot have a referendum now in the time available to us before exit.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the UCL report, which I have looked at and discussed with officials, but it remains our view that that timetable is extremely optimistic, given the current state of the numbers in Parliament. For comparison, the previous referendum Act took seven months to pass through Parliament. I remind noble Lords that that was from a Government with a majority in the House of Commons acting on a manifesto commitment, neither of which are the position now. This does not include the time needed adequately to take the other steps; for example, the Electoral Commission recommends that referendum legislation should be clear at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with.
We obviously therefore cannot hold a second referendum by March 2019 without a further step, to which noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, referred: extending Article 50. I remind noble Lords that that, too, is not government policy. Aside from prolonging uncertainty for citizens and businesses, such an extension would need the unanimous agreement of the European Council. It is my view, after talking to many officials and other Ministers in Europe, that many commentators in this country are far too blasé about how easily that proposed extension might happen. As I say, it is not government policy and we will not apply for it, but the people who easily assume that it would be granted may be being extremely optimistic.
These calls for a second referendum nearly three years since the clear referendum result are, as the Prime Minister has said—to be fair to the Liberal Democrats, at least they are clear about it—in order to stop Brexit, to move against the clearly expressed will of the people to leave the European Union. Although the Commons voted against the deal on Tuesday, this result tells us nothing about what it does support—nothing about how, or even if, it intends to honour the decision the British people took in a referendum in which the House of Commons invited them to do so.
A second referendum would be a process, not an outcome—a complex and potentially very harmful process at that. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Sherbourne. Seeking a second referendum, and thus second-guessing the clear result of the previous referendum, would be a dangerous precedent to set for our democracy, as he made clear. If we cannot uphold and respect the result of one referendum, what guarantees are there that we can respect and uphold the result of a second? If we were to have a second referendum, and the result of that was also close, why not make it the best of three? By definition, the people who are calling for a rerun of the original referendum do not respect the results of referendums. It is a recipe for years of political and constitutional chaos and fuel for distrust in government, politics and all of us as politicians.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I take a moment to set out the process before and after the 2016 referendum. As I said, Parliament overwhelmingly voted to put the question of the UK’s membership of the EU to the British electorate, allowing them to express a clear view. The simple and clear question was put, and we all know the result. Almost three-quarters of the electorate took part, and Parliament overwhelmingly confirmed the result by voting with a clear majority in both Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act to empower the Government to begin the process of withdrawing from the European Union.
Let us not forget that at the most recent general election, more than 80% of people voted for parties committed in their manifestos to respecting the leave result. Again, I forgive the Liberal Democrats on this, because at least they were clear in the election what their policy was, and they gained 7% of the vote for their trouble. Parliament subsequently passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The outcome of the referendum was, therefore, a clear answer to the question, expressing to the Government that a majority of the British public believed that the UK should withdraw from the EU, and we remain committed to respecting the will of the British people and the democratic process which delivered that result. We believe that we cannot compromise the British people’s ability to trust in politics and the Government. We will therefore continue to work to find consensus and deliver a deal and an exit which deliver on the instructions of the British people—whether they voted to leave or to remain.
Children and Young People: Digital Technology
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kidron
That this House takes note of the relationship between the use of digital technology and the health and well-being of children and young people.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have chosen to speak this afternoon, and very much look forward to each of their contributions. I refer the House to my interests on the register, particularly that as founder and chair of 5Rights.
Fundamental to this debate is the fact that we invented a technology that assumes that all users are equal when, in fact, a third of users worldwide and a fifth of users in the UK are children. It has been 150 years since we pulled children out of the chimneys and put them into school. Since that time we have fought on their behalf for privileges, protections and inalienable rights that collectively constitute the concept of, and offer a legal framework, for, childhood.
Childhood is the journey from infancy to maturity, from dependence to autonomy. We design and mitigate for it in multiple ways across all aspects of society. We educate; we require doctors to obtain additional skills to practise paediatric medicine; we do not hold children to contractual obligations; we put pedestrian crossings near schools; we rate films according to age. Children have special protections around sexual activity. It is illegal for kids to smoke, drink and gamble. We even take steps to protect them in environments where adults smoke, drink and gamble.
In short, we provide a complex but widely understood and respected set of social norms, educational frameworks, regulatory interventions and national and international laws reflecting the global consensus that society as a whole must act in the best interests of the child, in the light of the vulnerabilities and immaturities associated with their age. The digital environment fails to reflect that consensus, and the cost of that failure is played out on the health and well-being of our children.
In setting out this afternoon’s debate, I shall concentrate on three areas: the nature of the digital environment, my concern about the way we conceive online harms and, finally, how we might support children to flourish. For children in the connected world, there is no off or on. Their lives are mediated by technological devices and services that capture infinitesimal detail about their activities, frame the choices available to them and make assumptions—not always accurate—about who they are. Theirs is not a world divided by real and virtual; it is a single lived experience augmented by technology. The vast majority of a child’s interactions are not deliberate decisions of a conscious mind but are predetermined. A child may consciously choose to play a game, but it is machine-engineered Pavlovian reward loops embedded in the game that keep them playing. A child may consciously opt to participate in a social group, but it is the stream of personalised alerts and the engineered measures of popularity that create the compulsive need to attend to that social group. A child may wish to look up a piece of information, but it is the nudge of promoted content and automated recommendation that largely determines what information they receive.
Those predetermined systems are predicated on a business model that profiles users for commercial purposes, yet businesses that sell devices and services in the digital environment deliver them to children with impunity—even though we know that screens eradicate the boredom and capacity for free play that very young children require to develop language, motor skills and imagination; even though we know that a single tired child, kept awake through the night by the hooks and notifications of a sector competing for their attention, affects the educational attainment of the entire class; and even though we know that for teenagers, the feedback loops of social validation and competition intrinsic to social media play an overwhelming role in their state of mind and ability to make safe choices.
The children we work with at 5Rights make the case that it is simply not possible to act your age online. As one young boy said, “Online, I am not a kid but an underage adult”. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge said about the tech sector:
“Their self-image is so grounded in their positive power for good that they seem unable to engage in constructive discussion about the social problems that they are creating”,
including,
“fake news, extremism, polarisation, hate speech, trolling, mental health, privacy and bullying”.
Last year, I was in Africa when a young girl was auctioned as a bride on Facebook. I have sat with the parents of a child bullied to death online. I have been with a young girl at the devastating moment in which she realised that she had been taping sexual acts for a group, not just for the man with whom she thought she was in a relationship. I have been witness to scores of children who have ruined their family life, educational opportunities, reputation and self-esteem through overuse, misuse, misunderstandings and straightforward commercial abuse. An individual child does not, and should not be expected to, have the maturity to meet the social, sexual, political and commercial currency of the adult world.
In December, the Nurture Network, a multidisciplinary group of academics, mental health workers and child development experts, agreed that the three existing agencies of socialisation—family, friends and school—have now been joined by a fourth: the digital environment, an environment of socialisation in which the status of children is not recognised. In an interconnected world, the erosion of the privileges, protections and rights of childhood in one environment results in an erosion of childhood itself.
That brings me to my concerns about how we conceive harms. I will briefly raise three issues. First, our public discourse focuses on a narrow set of extreme harms of a violent or sexual nature. Ignoring so-called “lesser harms” misunderstands that for a child, harms are often cumulative. It fails to deal with the fact that one child will react violently to an interaction that does not harm another, or that vulnerable groups of children might merit specific and particular protection. Crucially, it ignores the fact that for most children, it is the quotidian that lowers their self-esteem, creates anxiety, and inflicts an opportunity cost in which education, relationships and physical and personal development are denuded, rendering children—or, should I say, “underage adults”?—exposed and unprotected. Children’s rights are deliberately conceived as non-hierarchical. We must take all harms seriously.
Secondly, it is not adequate to define children’s experience of the digital environment in terms of an absence of harm. As long ago as 1946, the World Health Organization declared that well-being was,
“not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”.
The NHS defines it as a feeling of “physical, emotional and psychological” well-being. We must set our sights not on the absence of harm but on a child’s right to well-being and human flourishing.
Thirdly, whether we are tackling the problems of live streaming, child sexual abuse, gaming addiction or thinking towards a new world order in which the fridge knows more about your child’s dietary tastes than you do and can exploit that fact, we must not wait until harm has been done but consider in advance the risks that children face. Technology changes fast, but the risks consistently fall into four categories: content risks, both unsuitable and illegal; contact risks, often, but not always, involving an adult; conduct risks, involving risky behaviour or social humiliation; and contract risks, such as exploitative contractual relationships, gambling, aggressive marketing, unfair terms and conditions, discriminatory profiling and so on. Most experts, including many in the enforcement community, consider that upstream prevention based on militating against risk rather than waiting for the manifestation of harm is by far the most effective approach.
There is much we can do. The Minister knows that I am not short of suggestions, but I will finish with a modest list. The digital environment is now indivisible from other environments in which our legal and regulatory arrangements embody our values. Parity of protection has been called for by the NSPCC. It was the approach taken in the Law Commission’s Abusive and Offensive Online Communications: A Scoping Report, and was articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in establishing that the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 applies equally to artificial intelligence. What plans do the Government have to bring clarity to how our laws apply to the digital environment? Specifically, will the Government bring forward a harmonisation Bill to create an obligation to interpret legislation in a manner that offers parity of protection and redress online and offline, in a similar manner to Section 3 of the Human Rights Act?
Designing out known risk, often referred to as safety by design, is standard across other sectors. We like our brakes to work, our food to be free of poisons and our contracts to be fair in law. The Secretary of State has said that he is minded to introduce a duty of care on the sector. That is very welcome—but to be effective, it must be accompanied by impact assessments, design standards, transparency reporting, robust oversight and a regulator with the full toolkit of persuasion and penalty. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are planning this full suite of provisions?
The age-appropriate design code introduced by this House demands that companies anticipate the presence of children and meet their development needs in the area of data protection. I hope that the Minister will confirm the Government’s determination to produce a robust code across all areas of design agreed during the passage of the Data Protection Act. The code’s safety by design approach could and should be an exemplar of the codes and standards that must eventually form part of an online safety Bill.
Finally, companies make many promises in their published guidelines that set age limits, content rules and standards of behaviour, but then they do not uphold them. It is ludicrous that 61% of 12 year-olds have a social media account in spite of a joining age of 13, that Facebook says that it cannot work to its own definition of hate speech or that Twitter can have half a million pornographic images posted on it daily and still be characterised as a news app. Subjecting routine failure to uphold published terms to regulatory penalty would prevent companies entering into commercial contracts with underage children, drive services to categorise themselves accurately and ensure that companies say what they do, do what they said and are held to account if they fail to do it. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this measure will be included in the upcoming White Paper.
Technology is often said to be neutral, and when we criticise the sector we are told that we are endangering its promise to cure cancer, educate the world and have us experience space travel without leaving our home, or threatening the future prosperity of the nation. Technology is indeed neutral, but we must ask to what end it is being deployed. It could in the future fulfil the hope of its founders and offer the beneficial outcomes for society that we all long for—but not if the price is the privileges, protections and inalienable rights of childhood. A child is a child until they reach maturity, not until the moment they reach for their smartphone.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the chance to have this debate. I enjoyed listening to her address very much. I do not join her in all things. My overall view on the large-scale effects of the association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use accords with that of Amy Orben, as published in Nature Human Behaviour at the beginning of this week, whose study of large-scale databases found that the overall average effect of digital technology use accounted for 0.4% of the overall well-being of the young people concerned—up there with a fondness for potatoes. In other words, it is extremely statistically insignificant and of no practical significance whatever. The same study pointed out that, on the evidence, the main positive effects on well-being were getting a good enough breakfast, enough sleep and vegetables; and, on the downside, drink, drugs and bullying. In other words, what we are dealing with is looked at on a large scale and on average is not something that children as a whole find it difficult to deal with. However, the fact that something is not a problem generally does not mean there are not specific problems. I thoroughly recommend to the Minister the NSPCC briefing for this debate. I line up behind all its recommendations.
It is important that we properly regulate the social media giants. When they started out, many of us might have believed that at their heart they were good and wonderful and intended nothing but delight and helpfulness to the rest of humanity. I think most of us now realise that they are exploitative and immoral, with no care for us in any particular way, just like the commercial behemoths before them. Under those circumstances the Government have a crucial role in mediating on our behalf, with the immense power that these organisations have. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, pointed out, there are many things to be done. Some very good intentions have been expressed, and we very much hope that the Government will carry them through.
At local level, schools and parents have to take many decisions concerning social media. We need to encourage sensible, locally decided practice. We want our children to have a life beyond social media—to do homework and to succeed at school. I very much commend to the House the work done by Katharine Birbalsingh at Michaela, where she has an absolute ban on mobile phones in school. That works for her. That is not to say it should be everywhere, but we as a Government should look at good practice, understand what works and tell people about it. We should support parents in making good decisions, as we do in many other aspects of health and family, through good public information. I very much hope that my noble friend will commit to that.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I have always had the highest respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and her opening speech this afternoon has just increased that respect. It has also almost disabled my ability to contribute to this debate, because I cannot think of a single thing she has said that I do not agree with or can usefully add to. But never mind; I will press on.
I press on as, fundamentally, an analogue human in a digital world. I have had much to learn from the noble Baroness and from other people, for example, from your Lordships’ Communications Committee, with whom I have had the privilege to work. I do not want to enumerate the harms; that was done extensively and extremely powerfully by the noble Baroness in her opening speech. I want to put a little context around them and to talk a little about mitigation in one respect.
We must acknowledge what is unique and unprecedented about the challenges we face now, but we should remember that some of what we are looking at is old problems in new clothes. That is not to say they are not problems; I simply say let us not frighten ourselves by thinking that everything is new and we do not know anything. All adult generations fear the harms that may befall their children; that is their job. All innovation creates anxiety, and most new technologies have downsides as well as upsides. Alongside their brilliance and ingenuity, human beings have always had a capacity to turn what they have created to malign as well as benign ends. Then there is the unpalatable truth, but a truth none the less, that physically and intellectually mature humans have always seen immature humans—children—as a valuable resource, seeking to take advantage of their vulnerability for a variety of purposes, individual and corporate. These purposes have historically ranged from child labour, through child prostitution and other forms of sexual abuse, to the exploitation of child spending power and, latterly, data harvesting.
The point I really want to make is this. It has long been the job of legislators, working with the institutions of civil society, to articulate where at any time boundaries must be drawn and, where necessary, to regulate and enforce those boundaries. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, the idea of childhood as a protected space is relatively recent and, as legislators, we need to recognise that it is under threat from tech companies that do not properly distinguish between children and adults, as the noble Baroness so forcefully described.
The question of how new boundaries are to be set is a matter not only for the Government but for everyone. We genuinely are all in this together. However, it is for the Government to set the tone, and education is one of their most important tools. However, as the 5Rights report Towards an Internet Safety Strategy says, education is,
“frequently used to demand that users, particularly children, be resilient to a system that does not respect or protect their safety and security”.
It notes the increasing involvement of tech companies, including Facebook and Google, in education provision. For example, the report points out Google’s educational programmes, widely deployed here and in the US, which present Google as “impartial and trustworthy”, even though the programmes do not address risks associated with how companies like Google operate. Putting foxes in charge of the chicken coop comes to mind.
We cannot reasonably add yet another set of directives and associated sanctions to the duties of hard-pressed schools and teachers without providing significant new resources to help them deal imaginatively with the challenge. By this I mean both a revised curriculum and proper investment in teacher training, both initially and through continuing professional development. There is also a growing need for consistent practical messages from government to parents and other adults, free of commercial bias.
Finally, I want to say what I always say about the value of creative, arts-based education in developing the critical thinking and reflective skills which, in conjunction with other initiatives, our children need more than ever to help them participate fully in the digital future, able to seize the opportunities while understanding the risks. We owe them that. I support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has said and recommended. I hope the Government will confirm that they do too.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this debate. I sometimes wonder what the relationship is between digital technology and the health and well-being of adults, particularly when I hear my smartphone ping just as I am about to go to sleep or when an email alert pops up when I am trying to concentrate on an important speech. The focus of this debate, however, is very properly on children and young people, who comprise the first generation of digital natives.
In the Industrial Revolution, the impact on children and young people was significant, especially on those who worked in factories. Health and safety was very much an afterthought, if that. The digital revolution has been much faster and the impact much greater, with much greater penetration: at least 95% of children own or have access to a digital device. To minimise the bad effects of digital technology, action must be taken by central government, providers, advertisers, schools and of course parents.
I am afraid to say that successive Governments have not even attempted to regulate providers in any serious way. In 2017, the Green Paper promised to make Britain,
“The safest place in the world to be online”.
In May 2018, the Government’s response to that consultation recognised, not unsurprisingly:
“More and more people are concerned about safety online … there are no clear standards for behaviour and … social media companies are not taking responsibility for what happens on their platforms”.
On mental health, they acknowledged:
“While the evidence around the impact of social media and internet use is not yet conclusive, there are potential negative impacts. These include … social isolation, competitive pressures, increased vulnerability, increased exposure to abusive content, increased likelihood of cyberbullying and the risk of grooming for exploitation”.
The Government talked about a “digital charter”. If you will excuse the pun, there is as yet little evidence that the Government are getting their finger out. Where is the promised White Paper? Having talked the talk for years, the Government are just beginning to walk the walk. They are considering—only considering—new policy areas,
“on safety that have been identified during the consultation process that warrant further work, including: … age verification … policies aimed at improving children and young people’s mental health … tackling issues related to live-streaming; and, … further work to define harmful content”.
One example of where the Government’s abject failure has made matters worse is their taking the responsibility for the rating of video games away from the British Board of Film Classification and giving it to the Video Standards Council. It has refused a classification for only one game, and games are littered with violence, sexuality and rape.
Every parent and every adult has a duty to campaign to minimise the damage that digital technology may cause to the health and well-being of children and young people. The NHS 10-year strategy devoted a whole section to coping with the mental health problems of children and young people. Perhaps if we did a little more about prevention, there would be less distress for young people and their families and less pressure on expensive cures. It is incumbent on the Government to do all that they can to regulate at least the worst excesses of the industry, and to provide the resources to schools to ensure that children and young people can become resilient.
One immediate step the Government could take is to finally make up their mind about personal, social and health education. When are the Government going to agree that this should be taught in all schools and provide the resources and the training—and, if they are short of money, make Google and Facebook pay more than a fraction of their dues in corporation tax? That would provide enough for a decent programme.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this timely debate on an important topic to society. I reiterate that I have little to add to her excellent speech. I refer the House to my interests as outlined in the register.
As other noble Lords have acknowledged, most children and young people use at least one form of technology on a daily basis. The majority of such use is positive. The internet enables us all to access up-to-date, relevant information which can be an invaluable aid for learning and for homework in particular. Children who live in villages in rural communities, as I do, have seen their opportunities to access information revolutionised with fast broadband, and it is vital that we remember how difficult it was for some young people to connect not only with information but with their families and friends prior to having access to the internet.
Smartphones facilitate us all in keeping in contact with family members and are now used by young people, “digital natives”, to assist with their health needs—the mobile app designed for adolescents to monitor their dietary intake if they have type 1 insulin-dependent diabetes being one example. Similarly, cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression provided by the internet is widely accessed by our young people, who find it a positive method for accepting delivery of mental health services at a time and place of their choosing. Conversely, we see young people seeking likes and perfection through platforms, such as Instagram, which seem to be linked to increasing anxiety and depression in vulnerable groups.
The excellent Library briefing for this debate outlines, however, that one in 10 children and one in five young teenagers have encountered something worrying or nasty in the past year, including pornography and violence on video-sharing websites. However, it is not possible to determine whether the internet has increased the overall risk to young people or whether it is merely an alternative location for risk experiences which have always been present in society.
We know that the Children’s Society has highlighted the negative impact of cyberbullying and Public Health England contends that longitudinal research has identified the causal relationship between experiencing bullying and poorer health outcomes. We have enough evidence to be certain that there is a relationship between exposure to bullying and mental health problems experienced by young people. Therefore, as we also know bullying occurs both on and offline, we must somehow reduce exposure to it.
Some research indicates that the amount of time that young people spend on the internet may be adversely related to their health and well-being but there remains the need for further research in this area, as outlined in the recent report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health on the impacts of screen time on young people’s health. This guidance suggests there is no one size fits all, with parents needing to balance the risks and benefits in their family.
Yet parents need guidance free of commercial involvement, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. The one strong recommendation in that report is that young people have at least an hour off-screen prior to going to bed as there is a strong correlation between sleep pattern interference and screen use in the golden hour before sleep. We also have clear evidence that sleep is essential for well-being and good health.
This leads me to two questions for the Minister. If we want to make Britain the safest place in the world to be online, what is the Government’s safeguarding role in terms of monitoring and controlling content that can be accessed by young people, including advertising? Secondly, if, as the NSPCC states in its briefing document for this debate, self-regulation has failed to protect children sufficiently to date, will the Government use their power to introduce a regulatory model that holds social network providers to account to improve the safety of the internet for young people?
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for raising this subject and for her outstanding introduction to this debate.
Fifty-five thousand children in this country are classified as problem gamblers. The Gambling Commission’s report, Young People and Gambling, published in November, shows that gambling participation has risen, with 14% of 11 to 16 year-olds having spent their own money on gambling. That is a greater proportion of young people than have drunk alcohol, smoked cigarettes or taken illegal drugs.
Today’s children are being conditioned to think that the normal way to enjoy sport is to bet on it—as opposed to what I was brought up with, where you simply enjoyed seeing people competing with one another. They face a barrage of adverts during sports broadcasts. Young people today see an average of 3.8 gambling adverts daily, and 66% of children have seen gambling adverts on TV—a product of the £1.2 billion spent by the industry on advertising. The wild west of the online world is compounding the problems among young people. These digital natives, who are wonderfully adept with technology, are most at risk from the digital switch that the gambling industry is currently undergoing. The many millions of children and young people on social media sites have the option to follow accounts created by the gambling lobby, which often floods the very same sites with adverts, all without any need for age verification.
Yet, more than this, the very nature of gambling is changed by being online. No longer are people limited by how long a bookie stays open and no longer are people easily prevented from gambling if they are underage. Dr Henrietta Bowden-Jones of Imperial College has highlighted how young people can disengage from previously rewarding activities and relationships in the real world and move towards using screens excessively. This is the very seedbed in which gambling disorders can easily take root. The report refers to what any parent already knows: children’s predilection to seek immediate gratification makes them particularly susceptible to habit-forming rewards. Take away time limits or age verification on phone and online games, and they can all too easily become addictive.
The online world has changed dramatically since the Gambling Act 2005. Nowadays many in-app games are promoted by popular TV personalities. Before 2005, words such as “loot boxes” and “skins” would have been met with blank stares—indeed, I suspect they still may be from many people in this Chamber—yet they are now commonplace language among young people. It is not simply my opinion that loot boxes function as gambling in everything but name; the Belgian Parliament has outlawed them because of its worries.
This debate is centred on the challenges facing young people. I believe we need urgently to monitor the use of online games that use skins and loot boxes. We need to adopt the precautionary principle in limiting, or preferably banning, online gambling adverts. Therefore I hope the Minister will set out the steps that Her Majesty’s Government are taking to monitor and respond to this worrying aspect of the digital world.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness on securing this debate. Whenever we discuss this enormous issue, I am reminded of the words of Bismarck, who would no doubt have had a thing or two to say about recent events, who once said that people cannot create or divert the stream of time; they can only travel on it and steer with more or less experience and skill. For all of us in 2019, that stream of time is to be found in the transformative power of digital technology, which is sweeping all before it.
This awesome industrial revolution—for that is what it is—is having its greatest impact on young people. Every aspect of their lives and their careers is being shaped by it. A survey for Ofcom last year showed that one-fifth of young people aged 16 to 24 are so addicted to smartphones that they spend more than seven hours a day online, which is equivalent to more than two full 24-hour days per week. For a generation born at the millennium, smartphones are now an indispensable part of life.
We know what the damaging consequences of digital technology on the lives and well-being of young people can be. Social isolation, cyberbullying, radicalisation and an increased propensity to depression are all very real problems but, used properly, with comprehensive safeguards and with parents and teachers playing an active role in informing children about potential dangers, digital technology can be a fantastic enabler, with a central role to play in educating healthy, happy and well-informed students, making them more literate and developing critical thinking skills. Indeed, perhaps instead of focusing quite so much on the dangers of technology, those involved in the development of public policy should also understand the opportunities and benefits it provides, or we will risk restricting its positive impact on creativity, education and well-being.
One area which demonstrates this positive impact extremely well is music education, and here I declare my interest as chairman of the Royal College of Music. Studying music has a profoundly positive impact on young people. It increases cognitive ability, improves attainment in maths and English, boosts employability and helps maintain good physical and mental well-being. So learning music at school is absolutely crucial for the way that children develop, although, shockingly, too many people are currently denied that.
Where children are lucky enough to have access to music education, digital technology can assist extremely effectively, although I must underline that it is an enabler, not a substitute, for proper academic learning. The UK music industry is leading the way in developing the technology to support it and to ensure that a musical experience is accessible to all. Key to that is seeing digital devices as musical instruments, allowing teachers to involve everyone in a class.
One teacher I know from the Royal College of Music told me how he used technology in his classroom to enable a performance in public for every year 9 pupil in the school, playing Pachelbel’s “Canon” on iPads. That technology allows pupils to write and rehearse compositions, to provide context for film music, which allows them to see their compositions combined with film, and to learn new instruments at their own pace. Those are fantastic achievements and point the way to the future. A growing number of digital services and websites are being developed to deliver this essential support, including Tido, Charanga and the innovative daveconservatoire.org, which is used by 3 million people around the world and by schools on every continent.
Digital music technology, safely and intelligently deployed, enables all children to learn the vital skills of collaboration and public performance, and to practise discipline, self-direction and the development of an independent creative voice. Those skills are transferable across a whole range of activities and career choices later in life, which is why they are so important.
Of course, we must be alive to the dangers posed by digital technology. We must keep under review the case for greater regulatory safeguards, as we have heard in a number of speeches; ensure that parents and teachers play an active role in educating children on how to use technology as a balanced part of their lives; and make accessible and affordable high-quality educational resources available online—an area where government has a key role to play. If we do that, it is absolutely right that technology should now be at the heart of every child’s education. Our country’s creative economy and the future of music, which are very much in jeopardy, will be all the stronger for it.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this important debate, and for her excellent speech.
Last month we debated the Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations 2018, which will see commercial pornographic websites placed behind age verification. I very much welcome that decision and ask the Minister to give the House an update on its “go live” day.
I fear, however, that significant problems remain in relation to child access to adult content, as a number of concerns have been raised about the exclusion of social media from the scope of the regulations. Indeed, in November the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, noted that the Digital Economy Act 2017, while seeking,
“to restrict children’s access to pornography based on scale … failed to bring platforms such as Twitter within scope, despite 500,000 pornographic images being posted daily”.—[Official Report, 12/11/18; col 1766.]
Clearly this is a subject that needs to be kept under review, and I hope that the Government will address it in the online harms White Paper.
I have been a consistent supporter of parental filters for online services. We discussed this subject in detail during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill in 2017, but I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on what both large and, crucially, small ISPs are doing about online filtering. The most recent Ofcom report on children’s and parents’ media use and attitudes, published in 2017, says that 39% of three and four year-olds use home network-level filters, as do 37% of five to 15 year-olds. Although this is an increase on previous years, it is still surprising to me that more parents do not use that option. Does the Minister have any new data on the use of filters?
As I said last month, I remain concerned about online gambling. We know that, notwithstanding the Gambling Act, young people gamble online. I very much welcome the Gambling Commission’s efforts to ensure stricter age-verification checks for those seeking to gamble online or who play free-to-play online gambling games. I very much hope that the new licensing conditions proposed in the recent consultation on proposals to strengthen age and identity verification for online gambling will come into effect soon.
I am very concerned to note that in last year’s report on young people’s gambling, 13% of 11 to 16 year-olds had played gambling-like games online, for free and without prizes. Some 40% of those who played online gambling-style games played these before gambling for money. I also note with great concern that information about gambling is easily accessed by young people: 59% have seen gambling advertisements on social media, more than one in 10 follow gambling companies on social media, and they are three times more likely to spend money on gambling. Of those who have ever played online gambling-style games, 24% follow gambling companies online. We are surrounding our young people with messages about gambling from a young age. If we are serious about living up to the licensing conditions in Section 1 of the Gambling Act, I do not believe it appropriate to passively accept this situation.
Lastly, I am concerned that 31% of 11 to 16 year-olds have bought so-called loot boxes, which, as has already been mentioned, allow for in-game purchases. In the 2017 Ofcom report, 30% of parents of five to 15 year-olds were concerned about the pressure on their child to make in-game purchases, and they were right to be so. There is a particular concern about loot boxes, also known as mystery boxes because the purchaser does not know what is in the box—it is an act of chance. A recent academic paper states that,
“loot-box systems share important structural and psychological similarities with gambling”.
The Gambling Commission itself has acknowledged that there is a blurring around the edges of gaming and gambling.
In this context, and again mindful of our obligations under Section 1 of the Gambling Act, I believe that the time has come for the Government to take robust steps to protect children and young people from loot boxes. The DCMS Select Committee in the other place is looking into this issue. I shall read its report with interest, and I sincerely hope we are going to hear more from the Gambling Commission about how many young people are betting on e-sports—that is, competitive video gaming—and whether they are betting with cash or with items won or purchased while playing video games. Above all, we need to ensure that young people do not get drawn into gambling unwittingly.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we are halfway through this important debate and we are very tight for time. I ask Peers to adhere to the four-minute time limit.
Baroness Greenfield (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the opportunity to speak in this timely debate. Having been a tutor in neuroscience at Oxford, and as CEO of a biotech company, Neuro-Bio, I shall focus on how digital technology influences brain function.
Humans occupy more ecological niches than any other species on the planet because of our superlative ability, compared with any other animal, to adapt to the environment. Our brains become highly personalised through the development of unique configurations of connections between our brain cells that characterise the growth of the human brain after birth, personalising it into a highly individual “mind” that is in constant dialogue with, and continuously updated by, the environment.
Digital technology opens up an unprecedented environment. Now, for the first time, you can live effectively in a parallel universe: recreation via video games, friendship via social media and learning via search engines. Let us take each one in turn. The World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics have both recently characterised addictive internet gaming as a psychiatric disorder. The neuronal mechanism of addiction is an enhanced release of the chemical messenger dopamine, which underlies the anticipation of reward, raised arousal levels and the neuronal mechanisms of drug addiction.
We know that dopamine inhibits the prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain that is particularly dominant in humans. This region becomes fully operational only in late-teenage years; until then, there is a well-recognised characteristic profile of recklessness, short attention span and—most significantly—overdependency on external stimulation. An immature prefrontal cortex, coupled with surges of dopamine during video gaming, could result in a mindset driven to have, literally, a “sensational time”.
What of social media? When you meet someone face to face, only 10% of the total impact is dependent on language; much more relies on the tone and volume of your voice, eye contact, body language and of course physical touch, none of which is available via a screen. If we do not rehearse these skills, we will not be very good at them. Face-to-face interaction will be ever more aversive, resulting in impaired interpersonal skills, increasingly referred to nowadays as “virtual autism”.
What of learning? Two secondary school teachers in Washington DC, Joe Clement and Matt Miles, recently published Screen Schooled, a book that persuasively sets out the evidence and arguments that too much screen time has resulted in students who lack focus and critical-thinking skills—and we should remember that information from the screen is not the same as knowledge. The profile of the mid-21st century mindset could comprise: a short attention span, addictive, reckless, low on empathy, and with a fragile sense of identity and poor critical thought.
A key factor is an overemphasis on the sensory pull of the immediate moment, oblivious to any relationship to the past or future. Yet it is just such a linear sequence of a merging of past, present and future—more generally, a beginning, a middle and an end—that characterises the thought process itself, leading to language, sentences, stories, life stories and hence a robust individual identity. Surely we need to promote behaviours that, instead of multitasking, mandate sequencing single actions in a specific order over an extended timeframe—cooking or gardening, for example. Perhaps the most obvious form of sequencing would be reading, ideally from a real book.
Sport is another activity that precludes multitasking. Moreover, physical exercise results in the production of new brain cells, enhanced academic performance and a reduction in mental impairments, not to mention the benefits against obesity.
In 1964, the writer Isaac Asimov predicted life 50 years on. He said:
“The lucky few who can be involved in creative work of any sort will be the true elite of mankind, for they alone will do more than serve a machine”.
It is ironic that excessive use of digital technology may well be eroding the very talents we will need to compete with AI in the workplace of the future. To thrive in our current culture, we need to refocus our priority on nurturing self-confident and thoughtful individuals for whom digital devices do not drive the agenda of their daily life but are merely part of a more diverse toolkit for attaining personal fulfilment in the real world.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, digital technology offers children a range of wonderful opportunities to have fun, create, learn, explore and socialise. However, not all progress takes us forward, because emerging evidence shows that digital technology can expose children to a vast range of online harms: inappropriate content, online gambling, body shaming, the production and distribution of child abuse imagery, and online grooming. The impacts can be devastating. Tech firms are failing our children and they will not take action until they are forced to.
Children make up one-third of global internet users and they see little distinction between their online and offline worlds. The NSPCC has developed an important set of regulatory proposals to keep our children safe in their digital playgrounds—and it should be listened to. When children consume things such as food, toys and clothes, those all meet standards that let us know they are safe. The online world should be the same. The age appropriate design code is an important step in building child-protection features into the online environment. Platforms should give children the highest privacy settings and make sure that geolocation is switched off by default. A statutory duty of care must be imposed on social networks by a social media regulator with the teeth and power to hold social networks to account and enforce this duty.
The spread of child sexual abuse images is getting worse and increasing in severity among the younger age group. Last year, the Internet Watch Foundation removed a record number of child abuse images from the internet. The IWF has a zero-tolerance approach and thanks to its work the UK has the fastest removal times of anywhere in the world.
The spectrum of online harms, other than child sexual abuse, is not so simple to legislate for, because harm is not recognised in law, or because it is technically difficult to enforce any law that is in place without compromising user privacy. But the Government need to consider the technical, legal and social implications and begin the serious debate about what the future of internet regulation might mean for citizens in the UK. Despite these issues rising up the agenda for concerned parents, many do not know how best to protect their children from harm online. It is up to policymakers to make effective legislation that considers the technical and social issues in dealing with a specific harm.
Play has been a big part of our lives, but a report by the Association of Play Industries—a movement for movement—reveals that today’s children have never moved so little and points to substantial evidence that screens are a key reason. By the age of eight, the average child will have spent one full year sitting in front of a screen. The report says:
“Unless the government takes steps to help parents reduce children’s discretionary screen time, current attempts to tackle childhood obesity and poor mental health are likely to fail”.
For years I have been saying, “Take the television, phones and computers out of the bedroom so children can get a good night’s sleep”. I know that teachers support this.
The All-Party Group on a Fit and Healthy Childhood, which I co-chair, produced a report looking at children’s mental health and the issues surrounding screen time. One of the contributors, Dr Aric Sigman, has written numerous medical papers and concludes that by the time children reach middle adolescence they spend more time using their screens than they do sleeping. That is increasingly linked with risks to their mental health and well-being.
So-called screen dependency disorder covers a wide range of harms, such as compulsive internet use, video game addiction, mobile phone dependency, social network site addiction and so on—all growing problems. One of our report’s recommendations was for policymakers to be vigilant in detecting and publicising conflicts of interest and to familiarise themselves with the influence of the technology companies in lobbying, funding research and influencing the way the media portrays discretionary screen time and screen dependency disorders. For example, recent media coverage of a report supposedly claiming that screen time is not harmful to children failed to make it clear that the report was about television viewing, which nowadays accounts for only about half of children’s screen time. The report did not cover social media, computer games, smartphones or computer use.
Childhood lasts a lifetime, so it is our duty to get it right. Yes, all interventions involving children should be evidence-based, but when it comes to the important issue of keeping children safe from abuse and harm online, we must double our efforts, because we have had 10 years of failed self-regulation. If we do not act now, we risk harming another generation of children, so I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this crucial debate.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for initiating the debate and for giving me the opportunity to take part in it. We are all too aware that there is an immediate need for a greater focus and action in preventing cyberbullying online content being published in the first place. Online abuse remains an issue for millions of our young citizens, against the view that what is unacceptable offline should be unacceptable online. The consensus is that abusive or offensive posts should be automatically removed from social media platforms. Government has a major part to play in driving an online world that is fit for purpose for our younger generation, who can in many cases be so easily influenced. This is so that everyone can abide by the values that we all live by, with the attitude and behaviours we duly expect in the offline world.
The use of screens has become nearly inescapable in our daily lives as we search the net to access entertainment, communicate with others, socialise and of course to do shopping. With the development of new technology, most children and young people now use at least one form of technology every day but research demonstrates that cyberbullying can in many cases have serious effects on health outcomes, independent of the effects of traditional bullying. We see that the number of young people being cyberbullied at age 15 is almost double that at age 11, with girls more than twice as likely as boys to report being a victim.
As an interesting aside, it is noticeable that those young people who report come from a background of high family affluence, where they are most likely to say they had in fact been cyberbullied. It seems that young people who are assured and converse well with their parents are more likely to have better health and social outcomes, and be better equipped as they go through adolescence and early adulthood. It is the opposite for those who receive free school meals; they are, seemingly, less likely to report being a victim. Schools and colleges should be supported and encouraged more in their role to work closely with students, not only for academic success but to help them feel safe and have a place to belong. As research has also shown, where young people live—together with a good community environment—can have a significant impact on health and well-being.
Turning to physical health issues, as we witness young people using at least one form of technology every single day, that leads to less exercising. This is more prevalent in teenage girls. The opportunity to exercise more is a given, as it promotes helping to sustain emotional and mental health well-being. It delivers positive steps to improve self- confidence and determination and to manage stress and anxiety, so that our young people feel better about themselves.
Finally, this is about getting the right balance: using digital technology and keeping active. Ultimately, listening to every voice is so important, as it is for them to have fun, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said. The Government must make this the safest place in the world for children and young people to be online, and the sooner the better.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, the topic of this debate is often understood in ways suggesting that what is at issue is either a generic problem with the use of online technologies or a more specific problem arising from the use of social media. I declare an interest as someone who does not use social media, but whose life is greatly dependent on digital technologies. We are mistaken if we focus excessively on social media.
The generic problems for children and young people are said to include too much screen time, loss of sleep, educational damage, less social life and less exercise—I agree. The specific problems of social media use by children and young people, but not them only, are said to include a lurid list that runs across the risks of cyberbullying, a loss of privacy, exposure to porn and extremist propaganda and lots more. I agree entirely that each of these can damage young people; for that matter, they can damage older people as well. But the tech companies may, even if pretty belatedly, conclude that failure to curb these harms is damaging their reputations and commercial interests, so they will do more to prevent these harms. How successful they will be remains to be seen. So far, moves to take down harmful material have not been wholly successful.
However, these may not be the most damaging harms done by digital technologies and, more specifically, not the harms which most damage young people. The harms I have mentioned are all private harms in the economist’s sense of the term: they are harms suffered by individuals who are bullied or whose privacy is invaded, or whose education is damaged. There is a second range of less immediately visible harms that arise from digital media. These are public harms that damage public goods, notably cultures and democracy.
There is a large and growing body of knowledge about ways in which digital technologies are used to subvert democratic processes, including elections and referenda. It has happened in many jurisdictions. Such use of technology is cheap and its influence can be purchased and peddled by those who are not citizens, including corporations and states, among them hostile states and their intelligence services. Moreover, it can be done anonymously. Our electoral law, which regulates party-political expenditure during campaigns, is pathetically inadequate for dealing with hidden digital persuasion.
Equally, there is now substantial evidence of the use of digital technologies to undermine the reliability of news and information. This has often been hailed as a point of pride. When Mr Mark Zuckerberg first propounded his now infamous slogan “Move fast and break things”, one may assume that he took it that everything that would be broken would be something unjust and exclusionary that obstructed the dissemination of knowledge and information to the public. In the event, the digital revolution has swept away not only the wicked intermediaries, the censors, but essential intermediaries without whom we would have no serious journalism, no editorial judgment nor reliable ways of telling whether we were encountering fake news or the real thing. The wholesale destruction of intermediaries is a form of cultural vandalism, damaging to all but the perpetrators and the hidden persuaders, and in particular to young people.
I am all for pursuing the agenda of protecting young people from the private harms inflicted by uses of digital or of other technologies, but I think that we short-change the next generation if we do not protect them also from the public harms that such technologies enable. Protection from them will be far more difficult, I suspect, because it will not be in the commercial interest of the big tech companies that organise the data obtained from many sources—not, by the way, always social media—and package it for sale to those who pay to target specific groups for political and commercial purposes cheaply and, once again, anonymously.
In September 2018, Sir Tim Berners-Lee expressed his disappointment about what has happened to the web in these words:
“I’ve always believed the web is for everyone. That’s why I and others fight fiercely to protect it. The changes we’ve managed to bring have created a better and more connected world. But for all the good we’ve achieved, the web has evolved into an engine of inequity and division; swayed by powerful forces who use it for their own agendas”.
We have been warned.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I join all those who have thanked my noble friend Lady Kidron not only for tabling this important debate and her masterly introduction but for her relentless concentration on the issue in legislation and on other occasions. I also thank Nicole Winchester for her excellent Library brief.
My contribution will be limited to two personal observations about which I have been asking questions ever since making them. In 1997, as Chief Inspector of Prisons during a thematic review of young offenders, I visited the only young offender institution in Scotland, which I was told had an outstanding governor. To my surprise, as we were walking around, he suddenly said to me that if, by some mischance, he had to get rid of all his staff, the last one out of the gate would be his speech and language therapist. Never having come across such a person in any YOI in England, I naturally asked him why. He replied, “Because the young people cannot communicate, either with each other or with us, and until they can, we cannot begin to know what problems and needs they have or how to begin helping them to overcome them”. He went on to say that too many of them had never been communicated with by their parents or sat down to meals as a family, being dumped in front of the television or encouraged to play on their electronic devices, leading to their being able to communicate only in “binary grunts”. Having met his wonderful therapist, I learned what she was able to do for both young offenders and staff. I have been campaigning ever since for such a therapist to be appointed in every YOI. This inability to communicate is the scourge of the 21st century, for which I hold the amount of time children and young people spend using digital technology partly to blame. As the Library briefing points out, the range of topics relating to the impact of digital technologies on the health and well-being of children and young people is vast and there is no clear agreement on the impact, positive or negative, of screen time on an individual’s well-being.
My second observation is based on my chairmanship of a criminal justice and acquired brain injury interest group, which has a particular interest in the effects of such injuries on the developing brains of children and young people. Possibly influenced by evidence of a possible link between brain tumours and excessive use of mobile phones, there are those who suspect that too much digital technology use may cause damage to the growing brain. Hard evidence is impossible to come by, largely owing to the technology being comparatively new. Two years ago I remember being shown two scans, one of a 10 year-old’s brain taken 10 years ago and one taken that year. You did not have to be an expert to see that there were differences, which might be because they were different people. Experts admitted that they could not interpret the difference or what it meant in the long term, but it was sufficiently worrying for them to say that, while it was too early to predict any long-term implications, excessive use of digital technology could not be ruled out as a possible cause.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, an unregulated digital environment is causing moral decay. There is no time to reiterate the various harms that are being caused, but they are deep-seated, corrosive and pervasive. Just last week I was at a school in Essex talking to 7 to 11 year-olds about their use of a game called TikTok. All of them were using it. The lower age limit for using it is 13. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, pointed out, the digital world assumes that all users are equal and all users are adults, whereas in fact one-third of users worldwide are children. Therefore, their health, well-being and development require us to ensure that the internet, and the many ways that children access it, are as safe as they can be. This has usually meant creating special safe places for children or safety options that can be activated.
Would it not be better to turn this whole approach on its head? With any other public space, be it a cinema, a shopping mall or a city square, our assumption is that this is a safe place for all ages to gather and therefore safe for children. Regulation and, where necessary, legislation supports this view and then we create dedicated spaces for adults—not the other way round. In the cinema we do this through film classification. In a public park or a city square we do it through public order legislation. The internet is a public space. Indeed, for children and young people it is the public space. This means that regulation and guidance to make the internet safe by design are all the more necessary. Far from inhibiting the internet, as some vested interests claim, it will enable the internet to be the democratic, creative and liberating space it is meant to be. It is the lack of regulation that makes it dangerous and debilitating. Achieving a common standard does not make the internet restrictive for adults; it just means that we apply the same principles to all parts of our common life.
Let me put it another way. In the 1970s we added fluoride to water and to toothpaste. Dental hygiene was transformed. We stopped dealing with the symptoms of tooth decay and designed a way of improving everybody’s health. There is an important philosophical question here. What sort of world do we wish to build in this digital age? It is no good shrugging our shoulders and saying that it is all too difficult. Nor is it acceptable for Facebook, Google and Amazon to say that they are not to blame because they are just platforms. They curate the way we receive the information they gather, and this gives them a powerful editorial voice. Increasingly they are publishers as well, and their big bucks distort the whole ecosystem of our media economy. They are creating monopolies that it is hard to imagine us tolerating in any other industry.
The forthcoming report of the Communications Committee—on which it has been my privilege and education to sit, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—will present some recommendations on how we might regulate the internet. Most of all, we need to make it safe by design, and teach children how to inhabit it. Without this, we will sell them short and allow the liberating genius of the internet to be compromised and stymied. In other walks of life, if it were your child in the betting shop or flicking through a pornographic magazine, with their worldview being shaped by an increasingly narrow echo chamber of gossip, speculation and fake news, you would want to do something about it. That is our job. We need to find a way of putting fluoride in the internet.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this debate. I rise to express my concern about one particular way in which the internet can adversely affect children’s health—online gaming addiction, which has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield.
Gaming on the internet is enjoyed by millions of adults and children across the world. For them, it is the most wonderful form of stimulation, and a way to interact with friends and family. But for a minority of young players it can turn into an addiction. It mainly affects young men aged 12 to 24, and the results can be devastating. They can play up to 16 hours a day and their escape into a virtual world can devastate their lives, their schooling and their family. Games are becoming ever more complicated, with ever more attractions, and as a result they are becoming ever more addictive.
I would like to share with your Lordships the case of one young addict. Let us call him Troy. He reported to his local child and adolescent mental health services at the age of 15, suffering from long-standing low mood and suicidal thoughts. The therapist discovered that for the past year he had been gaming for up to 15 hours a day. Not surprisingly, he was becoming isolated and lived as a recluse, reluctant to leave the house for any reason. His single-parent mother tried to restrict his excessive gaming, but stopped when he threatened suicide.
Troy was diagnosed with internet gaming disorder. The therapists set him a reduction plan and encouraged him to develop activities beyond the game. But, after initial success, he was encouraged by fellow players to go back. Soon he was back up to 14 hours a day. When at the start of the new term he was forced to stop playing, he became so distressed that he tried to jump out of his bedroom window. Doctors discovered that Troy's levels of brain stimulation, from extended online gaming, were similar to those of people who had taken amphetamines and other stimulants. The addiction can lead to depression, paranoia and difficulty in enjoying the simple pleasures of life—eating, walking or meeting friends.
This and other case studies are just anecdotes, but this form of addiction is so new to psychiatrists and to policymakers that, although they are aware of the increasing problem, they do not have a definitive way of measuring its extent. The World Health Organization is considering including gaming disorder in the international classification of Diseases 11 at the May meeting of the WHA. Its inclusion will be a vital step in enabling clear diagnosis of the condition, and in providing a standardised tool for comparing the problem in different countries. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Government support this move.
As policymakers in this country grapple with the issue, they can take some guidance from China and South Korea, where gaming addiction is widespread among young men. They are working with parents and schools to raise awareness and prevent the spread of the addiction. But Asian policymakers are also working with manufacturers to reduce the addictivity of games. They have had some success: one game now sends a message warning the player of how long they have been playing; another can be set to time out after a certain number of hours. This work needs to be put on a more systematic basis. We already have regulation for sex and violence in games; this should be extended to regulating their addictivity as well.
If and when we leave the EU, I suggest that the Government investigate how EU regulations in this area would work. They should bring together stakeholders to rate the addictivity of existing games and horizon-scan new games. This could be done through a new regulatory body, but I hear the groans from DCMS at the great difficulty of doing that. Maybe we should just extend the remit of the Gambling Commission to cover gaming. These regulations could certify games with a score, warning players of their addictive nature. They could also work on preventive measures to ensure that vulnerable children are protected, particularly during their teenage years. Above all, they could co-ordinate work with gaming companies to build in more ethical design. It would create a win-win situation, encouraging trust in the companies and allowing all players to have an entertaining time playing games rather than becoming addicted. I urge the Minister to act now before further damage is done to our young people.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I too thank my noble and formidable friend Lady Kidron for securing the debate but also for keeping people aware of the issues we have been talking about today. Everyone who has spoken today has pointed out that digital technology and the web are not risk-free, especially for young people, and we have a responsibility to safeguard our children and to bring some order to what the NSPCC has called the “Wild West Web”. I am therefore very pleased to welcome the promise of an online harms White Paper. Some of us heard from the Secretary of State about this earlier in the week. I will say only that this should no longer be delayed; the risks are substantial, obvious and growing, and this is an urgent problem for us to address.
The NSPCC and the London Grid for Learning recently carried out research which showed not only that 24% of all children have been involved in live streaming and video chatrooms but that 12% of those children have video chatted with someone they do not know, while 6% who have live-streamed have been asked to change or remove an item of clothing. These are specific examples of the risks and dangers. In spite of this, very few live-streaming sites have taken proactive steps to monitor activity for abuse, to introduce effective moderation or to design in safety practices. All these are possible but they have not been done. As a result, it is now as likely that grooming will take place online as offline.
One of the most popular online games is called Fortnite. I know that some noble Lords play it regularly, but for those who do not, it has upwards of 45 million players. One of its most popular modes requires you to create an account by providing an email address or username. The game is rated 12-plus by the App Store but there is no age verification, so plenty of children under 12 play the game and are encouraged to do so because of the social media coverage, so as not to feel left out. The game also provides an unmoderated chatroom; it can be disabled, but most parents would not be aware of that—assuming they are even aware that their child is playing the game. The risks are obvious.
I want the Government and providers to take practical action to address those various risks, rather than just offering warm words. First, social media companies should be expected to direct resources to artificial intelligence—as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who is unable to be here today, has suggested—to detect under-13s using their platforms, given that the Children’s Society found that 61% of young people had a first account at the age of 12 or under.
Secondly, live-streaming sites should be required to adopt and publish specific standards that ensure that children are able to communicate only with approved contacts. The provider should be required to introduce real-time moderation, and again, algorithms should be used to detect inappropriate activity on site.
Social networks should be required to tell parents and children how safe their networks are, measured against clear criteria, how they maintain those standards and how they deal with reports and complaints. Yes, I absolutely agree with those who have suggested that the time must surely have come for an independent regulator to establish mandatory child safety rules. Every attempt at self-regulation has failed, and the industry has now had its opportunity to self-regulate.
Finally, I would like companies to follow the example set by O2, which is working with the NSPCC to provide advice to parents on the controls that can be introduced to keep their children safe online. The fact is that many parents are simply unaware of the dangers and how they can mitigate them. As I said, the Secretary of State has promised a White Paper. It needs to be produced very quickly. There is no reason why some of the things we have spoken about today cannot be introduced before the White Paper or legislation.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for initiating this important and extremely well-informed debate. She did it in such a thoughtful way, especially in emphasising the positive right of the child to flourish and the importance of harm prevention in this context.
Since we debated the first Digital Economy Act 10 years ago, public understanding of and attitudes towards the internet have changed markedly. Several noble Lords emphasised the benefits of digital technology, but in that time evidence has mounted of the effect of social media and connected devices on young people in particular, impacting on their health, mental well-being and educational attainment. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, unpacked that issue in an extremely instructive way.
Of course one could debate further the impact of the internet and digital technology on our democracy, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, demonstrated, but today I fear I have little time and it is necessary to concentrate on online harms to children. It has become clear that people—children and adults—should have the same rights online as they have offline. As the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, said, we must align online and offline behaviour and recognise the unique dangers that online access sometimes poses.
This House has already had an impact through the limited amount of regulation we have been able to impose on the internet. Too many Members are involved for me to mention them all, but there are the age-verification provisions; the age-appropriate design code, which was the inspiration of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; and the new offence of revenge porn, which my noble friend Lady Grender was instrumental in introducing, with government support, through the Criminal Justice and Courts Act.
However, so far, government efforts specifically to deal with the abuses of social media have been extremely limited and there is still a culture of hands-off regulation of the internet, which favours the platforms. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Storey pointed out, in the case of classification of video games, we have gone backwards. As he mentioned, we have had the Government’s digital charter, a Green Paper before that, and the Government’s response last May to the internet safety Green Paper. As many noble Lords have mentioned, we are also promised shortly a White Paper on internet safety strategy, which will set out plans for legislation covering,
“the full range of online harms, including both harmful and illegal content”.
Can the Minister convert that promise of “shortly” to “imminently” today? That would be an improvement to many minds.
The Secretary of State for Health last October asked the Chief Medical Officer to review the impact of too much social media use on children’s mental health and draw up guidance to help patients. Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, suggested that Ministers should consider taxing social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter to,
“help stem the tide of mental ill-health”,
or,
“at least help pick up the pieces”.
That is all heading in the right direction, and I hope it demonstrates the White Paper’s direction of travel. However, where is the promised interim review from the Chief Medical Officer?
In her report last year, Who Knows What About Me?, the Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, set out a series of recommendations on what our policy-makers should do to protect children. As advocated by Carnegie UK Trust, she believes that a statutory duty of care should govern relations between social media companies and the audiences they target. Recently, Ofcom has argued for tech companies such as Facebook and Google to be regulated in the same way as the mobile phone and broadband industry. I do not believe that this goes far enough, but it is interesting nevertheless that Ofcom, which is not known for its proactivity in this area, is prepared to argue for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said that the Home Office is considering the idea of an online safety commissioner. Those are all good indications.
Of course, many broadcasters have also got together to call for the independent regulation of online platforms’ operations in the UK. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who has been almost as redoubtable a campaigner in this area as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Last year, doteveryone produced a report entitled Regulating for Responsible Technology—Capacity, evidence and redress: a new system for a fairer future. As a number of noble Lords mentioned, the NSPCC has come up with an interesting combined scheme with suggestions for not just a duty of care but a regulator to enforce a set of compulsory standards through that duty. What the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said about the possible ingredients of that was very good. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford mentioned the House of Lords Communications Select Committee, of which he is a member. We all await with bated breath what I hope will be a worthy successor to its excellent report, Growing Up with the Internet.
It is becoming clear that we need the Government’s internet safety White Paper to be much more strategic and comprehensive in nature, and to have real teeth in terms of standards, regulation, transparency of reporting and enforcement. To cap it all, if the Government have not written the White Paper already, I hope that they will take serious note of the excellent 5Rights paper, Towards an Internet Safety Strategy, for which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was responsible. It sets out seven pillars of a safety strategy in a comprehensive framework. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, my noble friend Lord Storey, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and other noble Lords have emphasised, it is down to the Government to regulate this area. The Government should absolutely be proactive here.
As my noble friend Lady Grender stated so eloquently in the November debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, this is about recognising that parents can do only so much to protect their children from online harms. I am the parent of an online gamer and the uncle of a pioneering addiction researcher, so I am particularly aware of some of the issues here. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, is the expert, but the former Facebook president backed her. He let the cat out of the bag by stating that social networks had been designed to “exploit” the psychological vulnerabilities of their users, and that “dopamine hits” are built in to create addiction. That is what the algorithms are designed to deliver. It applies to gambling and gaming just the same.
We heard from a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Greenfield, about screen time. It is very instructive, is it not, that so many senior tech executives in Silicon Valley send their children to Waldorf schools—the equivalent of our Rudolf Steiner schools—which limit screen time? They believe that screen time has a major impact. I am not sure that I buy what techUK said in its briefing to us about the impact of screen time. The jury may be out on this, but I am afraid that I am pretty sure in what direction it is going.
We might pick and choose which regulator would be specific to this area. It could be the ICO, which has been very effective in the data field, it could be Ofcom or it could be a special commissioner. Nevertheless, we need to make sure that that body has the right resources and that we put the responsibility on to a single organisation so that we know who is accountable.
I do not have time to follow up on many of the points made by my noble friend Lord Storey about education, but it is absolutely crucial that our children are digitally literate—indeed, it is important that adults are digitally literate. That can be achieved in part through PSHE and partly through the kind of creative education that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about. However, ranging more widely, I would mention again the doteveryone organisation, because its identification of digital blind spots and how we are targeted by social media and digital technology is extremely important. We have to make sure that this is not just the responsibility of our teachers, and that we have in place other mechanisms to ensure that we achieve a high level of digital literacy. I have a huge amount of time not only for doteveryone but for people like the Good Things Foundation, which is doing a great deal in the community in this respect. We must ensure that we know who has power over our children, what values are in play and when that power is exercised. It is vital to the future of our children, to the proper functioning of our society and to the maintenance of public trust.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an extraordinary debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I met on the internet, or at least in a debate on the internet. I had responsibilities thrust upon me that I was quite unprepared for when the Data Protection Bill came to this House. There were three female Members of the House, the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding, Lady Kidron and Lady Lane-Fox. The three graces were truly extraordinary in providing the educational material that I took away, most of which I had been ignorant of before. It is so nice to see sitting beside the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, who once upon a time I interviewed when she arrived in startling fashion on a motorbike and in leather gear. It is good to see her in her place. She has extraordinary expertise and I do not know what kind of neuroscience it takes to produce the results that she has clearly mastered.
Last week, we had a debate about the influence of sport and the arts on the well-being of children, so this issue is clearly in the air. We do ourselves no favours if we simply forget the fragility of the young. I have always felt that poetry can tell us about how children have within them the capacity to flourish but also the readiness to live and die. Dylan Thomas wrote a famous short story about a visit to Swansea beach and he said it all:
“But over all the beautiful beach I remember most the children playing, boys and girls tumbling, moving jewels, who might never be happy again. And ‘happy as a sandboy’ is true as the heat of the sun”.
We must hold on to a picture of the child who is ready to become an adult and inhabit a world that the rest of us would want to warn them about. We must treasure the moment of a child being not quite there yet. I love the spring. I love flowers in bud. I love everything that has potential rather than the actual. It is that potential which I hope we can keep in mind as we talk about these things here today.
Since that meeting on the internet, I have made it my business to become more educated about something I was so ignorant of. My latest incursion into that field is to read this extraordinary book, Democracy Hacked: Political Turmoil and Information Warfare in the Digital Age by Martin Moore. It truly is an eye-opener about not just the potential but the real danger that faces us. Now I am retired, I never buy a book other than on the basis of two good reviews, one of which said:
“The digital age was supposed to be democratic, but under Google, Facebook and Twitter it has become a quest for profit at any cost”.
Let me read just one paragraph from the bit of the book that looks at young people and education:
“Tech CEOs know nothing in particular about education, for another thing”—
he had been talking about the health service—
“but are canny enough to see that it is a huge potential revenue centre, if only they could persuade schools to use their software and computers. Actually, Google is already doing a very good job of that. By mid-2017, the majority of schoolchildren in America were using Google’s education apps, which of course track the activity of every child, creating a store of data that—who knows?—might come in useful when those children grow up to be attractive targets for advertising”.
These are the algorithms to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred.
We have aired well enough the dangers and our fears for the uncritical use of these various modes of imparting information. Various learned bodies have given it their attention too. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, about the report from the Royal College of Paediatrics. It talks about the impact of children who lose parental control, are compulsive in their use of media, indulge in self-harm and suicide, et cetera—a whole list of stuff—but prefaces that list of potential difficulties by admitting that research into and training on the concept of addiction and gaming is needed. We can pick up the remarks about gambling by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and others. I have made the point in previous debates that the research deficit is worrying. We need to have empirical research and to dedicate real resource to accumulating it in a managed way so that we can all use and learn from it.
I must not go on, because we have run on longer than we should have, and I will try to be responsible. I read in the Library briefing that:
“Children see as many as nine junk food adverts during one 30-minute episode of their favourite TV shows, so it’s not surprising this leads them to pester for, buy and eat more unhealthy foods”.
It seems the world of advertising is geared towards getting profit from whatever strata of society it can, including children and young people, and at the expense of their well-being.
I will respond to hints and body language from across the Floor. We attended a meeting earlier this week where the Secretary of State promised a significant piece of legislation that will be all-encompassing, the first in the world and the greatest ever made. We will, of course, measure success as it unfolds. That meeting has put me in a position to be able to inform the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, of the real meaning of “shortly”. But I believe that is a responsibility for the Minister, and I leave that to him now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for curtailing his remarks—I sometimes feel that he could go on for a lot longer. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for convening a debate on this important subject and for discussing it with me beforehand. Finally, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will race through my response because I want to leave a minute or two for the noble Baroness to respond.
We all agree that the internet offers a huge range of opportunities and benefits. However, as we heard today, there are legitimate concerns about the relationship that young people have with digital technology and the impact it can have on their health and well-being. A great deal of work is taking place across government, and I will come to some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on that. Work is also ongoing in the tech sector, health services and the education sector to ensure that young people can access the benefits of the internet safely. However, we recognise that more research is required to better understand the impact that the digital world can have on health and well-being. This is new technology, changing before our eyes, so it is not surprising that we are experiencing unintended consequences, nor that the evidence is incomplete and sometimes contradictory, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned in his excellent speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, was a bit dismissive of the digital charter. However, through the charter we have already seen age verification, age-appropriate design, data ethics and innovation bodies set up, the Green Paper and hours of interaction within the sector. There is of course more to do, and I will come to that in a minute, but we have not been doing nothing in the meantime. The principle is ambitious—to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online—and we want to achieve it. That will include taking specific steps to support children and young people.
The forthcoming joint DCMS and Home Office online harms White Paper will be published this winter. It will set out a range of non-legislative and—I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin—legislative measures detailing how we will tackle online harms. It will set clear responsibilities for technology companies to keep all UK citizens safe, particularly children and other vulnerable users. There are, however, difficult lines to be drawn between liberties, freedom of speech, the freedom of the internet and protecting the public. We will therefore continue to encourage participation as we further develop our proposals. As has been mentioned, the Secretary of State had a useful first meeting open to all Peers on Tuesday this week, and we will encourage further discussion with Peers as the process goes on. I will say more about the White Paper in a minute.
We spend a lot of time in this House and at the DCMS talking about harms, especially to children, but it is important that we acknowledge the benefits of digital technology and social media. As my noble friend Lady Redfern said, it is about balance. The technology enables young people to access educational resources, make social connections, build relationships and demonstrate their creativity. It has impacted every area of our lives: the genie is out of the bottle and we cannot put it back. We therefore need to find solutions.
While we recognise the benefits, we also understand the concerns about the impact that digital technology may have on young people’s physical and mental well-being. The impact may relate to the device itself or to the content being accessed. For example, we know that parents and professionals are concerned that digital technology can lead to a lack of sleep and a lack of exercise, both of which are well documented as playing an important role in maintaining good health and well-being. There are also concerns about the impact of specific online harms which may not be illegal, such as cyberbullying, the encouragement of self-harm and online grooming. More generally, there are concerns about the impact of celebrity culture, disinformation and the pressure to live up to unrealistic portrayals of other people’s lives.
We have seen in recent years that the technology industry can deal with some of those harmful impacts through technical solutions and guidance—for example, filters and new well-being tools—and parents can use apps to set controls to limit their children’s access. Some of the big technology companies have provided resources for teachers and parents, so they are doing something. However, I am not suggesting that this will get them off the hook.
We recognise that companies can do more and, in particular, our internet safety strategy consultation highlighted that users, civil society organisations and professionals working with children felt that platforms needed to do more to manage the content and behaviour on their platforms. In addition, more can be done to make technical tools more effective and guidance more accessible.
The online harms White Paper I have mentioned will concentrate on supporting everyone’s ability to access the benefits of the internet while staying safe. In answer partly to the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, it will consider how we will protect children and vulnerable people in particular, and outline measures targeted at improving children’s safety online specifically.
Although we have had some success working with companies at a voluntary level, legislation is necessary to ensure that progress is extended across a greater range of platforms—we are not talking about only social media—and replicated in countering a wider range of online harms, and to give confidence to the public, which is important, that standards apply to and are enforceable on all platforms.
The White Paper will establish a government-wide approach to online safety, delivering the digital charter’s ambitions of making the UK the safest place in the world to be online, while leading the world in innovation-friendly regulation that supports the growth of the tech sector. It is a complex area and we are taking a thorough and traditional policy approach. We had the publication of the Green Paper, a consultation and the Government’s response, and now the White Paper which will precede legislation.
The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Bichard and Lord Storey, implied that progress was slow. However, this is a complex area so we are taking it at a reasonable measure. We expect and earnestly hope that we will be able to legislate, I have been asked to say “imminently” rather than “shortly”, but I have been around long enough not to get involved in that game. At least I did not say “in due course”. We wish to proceed and get to legislation once the White Paper has been discussed.
We are also engaging with industry, civil society, peers and academia, who sit at the heart of our operation, which we hope will enable us to develop world-leading law that is future-proof. As well as setting out the expectations for the tech industry, it will highlight the role of education and technical solutions in supporting young people online, and will build on the important work which the Department for Education has already taken forward in relation to ensuring that children are taught about online safety in schools.
Let me turn to what we know about these problems. There are, rightly, concerns about the impact of digital technology on young people’s health and well-being. We realise the need to build evidence about specific harms and to ensure that consistent advice is available. As has been mentioned, the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, has commissioned a systematic evidence review of the impact of social media use on children’s and young people’s mental health. This review covers cyberbullying, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and we understand the issues around safeguarding in this respect. It covers online gaming, sleep problems and problematic internet use—also known as internet addiction—where there is a social impact.
I have found the evidence, particularly as described in the media, confusing and sometimes contradictory. The only overwhelming view seems to be that we should not look at a screen before we go to bed—which, incidentally, most people should do earlier for optimal health. We are continuing to work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Secretary of State there, a former DCMS Secretary of State, knows about the issues concerning digital.
I shall try to deal with a few questions quickly as I have not got much time. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, mentioned education. I reassure them that we think that the arts are very important in that. In fact, quite a lot of work is being done in the Department of Health about arts for health. Although we are behind this and are making the case in government, we hope we have the Department of Health with us on that.
Perhaps I should start on the questions asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans about gambling as this is the third day running I have been talking about this. I shall be very brief because I have a lot to get through. In 2017, the Gambling Commission set out its continued commitment to tackle issues arising from a potential convergence between gaming and gambling, and to look at developments such as skins betting and social casino gambling. In September 2018, the Gambling Commission, along with 16 other regulators from Europe and the USA, signed a declaration which outlined common concerns about gaming and gambling. It is also seeking to work with the video games industry to raise awareness of this.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked about online gaming and addiction. The response to the Internet Safety Strategy outlined how we will work with online platforms and agencies, such as the Video Standards Council Rating Board, trade bodies and others, to continue to improve. He can look at that. I am not going to go through it in detail now.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked what we are going with regard to loot boxes. The Gambling Commission has strong powers. We are aware of the concerns that entertainment products such as video games could encourage gambling-like behaviour, so we will look at evidence around that very carefully. The Gambling Commission is aware of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, talked about the importance of communication, and my noble friend Lord Lucas talked about parents. It is important that we do a lot to help parents because they may not have the skills needed to supervise what their children are doing. That was certainly highlighted in the Internet Safety Strategy consultation. We were keen to receive more information on data protection, mental health impacts, et cetera. The new UK Council for Internet Safety will be tasked by the Government to review current online safety materials and to identify any gaps. One problem is that parents frequently express an interest but do not turn up to schools, for example, when these things are discussed, so we will have to be imaginative in looking at how we can help parents. The Chief Medical Officer is going to consider providing advice for parents in spring 2019, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned. Also, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health recently published The Health Impacts of Screen Time: A Guide for Clinicians and Parents, which the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, asked about.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked whether we were dealing with disinformation in the online harms White Paper or in another way. The UK Government take the issue of online manipulation very seriously, and tackling disinformation is already a key pillar of the digital charter. We will explore how we can use measures in the White Paper to address its harmful impact on society. I can also tell the noble Baroness that, as I mentioned before, we are not confining the online harms White Paper to social media.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford talked about safety by design. That is absolutely critical and we agree with it. We will get updates from tech companies that are developing new products to ensure that internet safety, cybersecurity and data protection are all part of the design process.
I am afraid that I have to stop. I have a lot more to say and will write to noble Lords, but I want to leave a couple of minutes for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I thank noble Lords for all their questions, and I realise that we have more to do. I finish by saying that we are committed to ensuring that the UK is the safest place to be online and we will work with a wide range of partners, including the tech industry, civil society and online safety experts, to ensure that young people can fully access the benefits that the digital world can bring safely and with confidence that tech companies and platforms will act in a responsible manner.
Baroness Kidron
My Lords, this has turned into something of a “Today” programme moment, where, having been asked the question, you have no time at all to answer. I am very sorry about that but I thank everybody for their contributions. It has been a hugely interesting debate and very diverse. The one thing that I would like to say in concluding—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Newlove) (Con)
My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed and I must put the Question to the House.